![[ Registered ]](/images/button3.gif){kind=small}
Republican Astroturfing
From today's South China (Unlinkable) Morning Post SCuMP, comes a letter from Angelo Paratico, a regular letter writer to the SCuMP.
I wish to comment on the article "Bush is savaged by former aide for record on terror" (March 23).
My impression of remarks by Richard Clarke is that he is bad-mouthing his past employer to settle old scores and sell a few copies of his book. In so doing, he is disclosing state secrets and damaging his government's reputation, for which he should be prosecuted.
That President George W. Bush asked to investigate a possible link between Iraq and 9 /11 was reasonable. If Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq - as mad as this may seem today - it was emotionally understandable from the perspective of 9 /11.
ANGELO PARATICO, Cheung Sha Wan
This bears all the hallmarks of Republican Astroturfing: regurgitating Republican Talking Points as letters to the editor of various local journals. This is intended to make the public believe that there is widespread support for a particular idea, as they keep hearing it repeated time and again. In this case, the idea is the standard one: Slime every critic of the administration and attack their patriotism.
I note that in this case, they don't seem to be attacking on the facts at all, just maligning Clarke personally. Ad Hominem attacks are a sign of a very weak argument.
Further Update: A good definition of Ad Hominem can be found here. A good definition of Astroturfing is here.
Update: I've removed the links to Angelo's name because he doesn't like google pointing people here. Unfortunately, I can't change Google! The google search result may go away over time. Another Update. I've put the links back. This is my site. If you disagree with content here, you can excercise your right to reply in the comments.
Posted by dave on March 25, 2004 12:00 PM.
#1 :: Angelo Paratico :: May 6, 2004 12:34 PM
Hi Dave
The one maligning facts here seem to be you, only. I gave clearly the reason: that Bush asked to investigate a possible Iraqi link it was more than logic and understandable. Try to disprove this fact, if you can, otherwise you will show clearly to be making an attack on me ad personam and being a democrat astrosufer.
#2 :: dave :: May 6, 2004 08:28 PM
Angelo,
I am not making an attack on you. I am pointing out that your letter repeats the Talking Points of the day; namely that Richard Clarke was making negative remarks about Bush purely to sell his book and for no other reason.
What you have glossed over is that Clarke did investigate any link between 9/11 and Iraq. He found that there was none, but Rumsfeld/Bush, et al, refused to accept that answer.
Incidentally, the White House vetted Clarke's book for a number of months before clearing it for publication. If any "State Secrets" were disclosed, as you allege, the White House was clearly criminally negligent for not spotting these secrets before clearing the book for publication.
#3 :: Angelo Paratico :: May 22, 2004 11:43 AM
Hi Dave
Where is Clarke book gone now? a fire of dry grass. Where are his allegations gone? heaven has not broken, no investigations, nothing new. Only rumbles, rumbles to sell few copies.
On which planet are you living, Dave? astrosurfing on Alpha Centaury? You take at face value what this sacked 'master of deception' tells you and you don't even give a doubtful second thought to Bush/Rumsfeld?
If they had not asked for a possible link between S. Hussein and 09/11 they would hve been very negligent. It was more than logical to think about that.
"There was none and Bush/Runmsfeld refused that to accept that answer" well, that's what mr. Clarke says. Should we believe him? who is this Clarke after all? who elected him to his position?
On the last point you are right, they should have never clear it for publication. It is something like for a catholic priest to publish the confessions of his parishioners. He should never have done that, not even for selling few copies or get his petty revenges
#4 :: dave :: May 22, 2004 01:35 PM
Angelo,
Clarke's book seems to be selling quite well: it's no. 25 in the Amazon sales ranking. (Richard Clarke's Book on Amazon.com)
With regard to investigaitons, I believe that the 9/11 Commision is still sitting and that they have not announced any judgements yet. They will be the final arbiters of whether Bush and Co. were 'asleep at the wheel'.
This would be the Bush who lied about his National Guard service, lied about giving extra money to New York after 9/11? (For more lies see here. The Bush who sat reading stories to children when he knew that the second WTC tower had been attacked?
This would be the Rumsfeld who lied about authorising torture by American soldiers? Who had business dealings with Saddam Hussein?
Who is Clarke? He served under four American presidents, three of whom were Republicans, and 30 years of government service.
I think I'll believe Clarke. He doesn't have a history of deceit.
He resigned, Angelo, he wasn't sacked. Please try and stick to the facts.
I fundamentally disagree on that last point. Government should be open. Rule behind closed doors seems anathema to the whole spirit of America. It's the sort of thing you expect from dictatorships, not democracies.
Also, I did not say that it should never have been cleared for publication, I said that if it contained National Secrets that it wouldn't have been cleared. Obviously, it didn't contain any such secrets and so was cleared for publication.
#5 :: Angelo Paratico :: May 24, 2004 02:24 PM
Hi, Dave
Bush & C asleep? after less than 9 months on the job you guess that Bush and his administration should have been at once alert that some crazy muslims were planning to crash planes on the WTC? what about the guy who was sitting on the chair for 10 years spending more time with Monica than with the CIA boss? was it not his duty to be alert about the impending danger? the Al Quaeda operation has taken years to be organized.
To be sacked or to be forced to resign is not much difference, this is a fact. All the bitterness in his book comes from this, if Bush and Rice would have taken him in their inner circle, the book will be not in the Amazon list now. Because there would be no book at all.
He served under 4 american presidents, but not always in senior positions. Perhaps is the living proof of Peter's law, that you are promoted to the maximunm level of your incompetence. I watched his testimony on TV, tearful apologies to the victims' relatives. Pathetic, this guy is a cheat from head down.
#6 :: Angelo Paratico :: August 6, 2004 12:30 PM
Dave
When somebody digit my name on the net, the first thing to appear is your posting, which piss me off a lot. I don't know who you are but I don't like this. Angelo
Comments so far: 6