James Joyner is a Professor of Security Studies. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.
I don’t see how, James, given what we now know of his political affiliations and leanings… the ones he dind’t bother to tell he committee about… like for example, who he voted for in the last election… a topic shich came up, by the way, during the inteview you cite.
The substance of the pullquote seems to me to amount to this: ‘What I said before was true and what I’m saying now is also true. For all the hype and bluster, what my “expose” really comes down to is a semantic argument between “important” and “urgent.” Oh, and I don’t think invading Iraq was a good idea.’
Stunning stuff that, to bring DC to a grinding halt over for over a week.
1. For those who haven’t been following the war on terrorism and the politics very closely, Clarke came across as a pro.
2. For anti-war folks, Clarke was right on.
3. To anyone who loves politics, Clarke came across as a guy who’s advice was ignored, is being ignored and always will be ignored. This is because he’s so focused on his view of the world, he doesn’t really understand strategy or know much about the real world. He’s been institutionalized for 30 years, for crying out loud.
4. Tim showed his bias by not probing the question of how taking on Iraq slowed the war on terrorism and the search for al-Qaeda. Clarke is selling the idea that the U.S. could fight only a single-front war. In fact, we’re fighting on several fronts every day—from the WOT, to Iraq, N. Korea, Kosovo, Iran, the Middle East, Africa, you name it. I guess Clarke can only deal with one topic at a time and has never mastered multi-tasking.
I don’t see how, James, given what we now know of his political affiliations and leanings… the ones he dind’t bother to tell he committee about… like for example, who he voted for in the last election… a topic shich came up, by the way, during the inteview you cite.
The substance of the pullquote seems to me to amount to this: ‘What I said before was true and what I’m saying now is also true. For all the hype and bluster, what my “expose” really comes down to is a semantic argument between “important” and “urgent.” Oh, and I don’t think invading Iraq was a good idea.’
Stunning stuff that, to bring DC to a grinding halt over for over a week.
I TiVoed MTP last night.
1. For those who haven’t been following the war on terrorism and the politics very closely, Clarke came across as a pro.
2. For anti-war folks, Clarke was right on.
3. To anyone who loves politics, Clarke came across as a guy who’s advice was ignored, is being ignored and always will be ignored. This is because he’s so focused on his view of the world, he doesn’t really understand strategy or know much about the real world. He’s been institutionalized for 30 years, for crying out loud.
4. Tim showed his bias by not probing the question of how taking on Iraq slowed the war on terrorism and the search for al-Qaeda. Clarke is selling the idea that the U.S. could fight only a single-front war. In fact, we’re fighting on several fronts every day—from the WOT, to Iraq, N. Korea, Kosovo, Iran, the Middle East, Africa, you name it. I guess Clarke can only deal with one topic at a time and has never mastered multi-tasking.
—