Considering the topics presented here in the past, I can't BELIEVE no one has started a thread on this yet. This has the potential to have a huge impact on the way the American government handles terrorism, let alone the obvious political ramifications for Bush's reelection prospects.

For those who've been hiding from newspapers for the last week, here's a quick recap:

Richard Clarke, recently retired White House terrorism czar and quite arguably the most knowledgable person in the world in the area of counter-terrorism, has just released a book called "Against All Enemies," a detailed account of US counterterrorism policies throughout the 90's and today. It also details how Clark asserts (with ample evidence) that the Bush administration dropped the ball with regards to al Quaeda, and furthermore asserts that the war in Iraq has strengthened al Quaeda. Considering that Bush is running his reelection campaign almost solely on his being the "Wartime/9-11" president, this is a pretty damning book.

As you might expect, the heaviest hitters on the right - even the highest members of the Bush administration - have come out in full force to discredit Clarke as a "partisan hack" and a "political opportunist," claiming that Clarke is little more than an embittered partisan, cast aside by Bush and now looking for some political and monatary payback. Clark himself has loyally supported every administration he's worked for - from Reagan to now - and Clarke is known for his apolitical, no-nonsense approach to his work. Hence, the "partisan hack" arguement doesn't really hold up.

But so far, any attempts to discredit Clarke (rather than attempt to disprove what he's saying, I might add) have virtually all fallen flat. Administration officials have directly contradicted each other in their statements against Clarke. When Republican Bill Frist accused Clarke of purgering himself by contradicting in his book what he'd stated in a 2002 private commision testimony, and that that testimony should be partially declassified to discredit him, Clarke returned by saying "absolutely - open the entire 6 hours of that testimony. Let's get it out in the open" (I'm paraphrasing here), the proverbial calling of the bluff. In what's possibly the biggest kicker for the administration, Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, is refusing to testify under oath before the 9-11 commission, even though she's made countless TV appearances lately to debunk Clarke's charges. She's claiming that members of the NSC are not allowed to testify under oath, as it may compromise national security to do so. Despite the increased pressure by the commission itself for her to testify, and the fact that past national security advisors have done so, she is still refusing to do so - even though she absolutely could, and should IMO. Either way, she's catching hell for it.

Before I get too far into my own assessment of the situation, I'd like to hear any other thoughts on this. This could either simply blow over, or it could very well bring Bush down in disgrace. The next few weeks will tell, but I think this is one of the more important issues to face our government in quite some time.

Some background:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/

Sorry DR, but this has no traction except with those who already hate Bush so much that they wouldn't believe it if Clarke came out and admitted that he has a personal axe to grind.

First off, I believe that the next time a National Security Advisor testifies in front of Congress with be the first time. If it has happened, it is extremely rare.

Second, even Time (an very liberal medial outlet) has discredited Clarke: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html

Clarke admitted that the Clinton administration had no anti-terrorism policies or plans to pass on to the Bush administration, and yet he expects that Bush should have had it all wrapped up and ready in 8 months? :rolleyes: Then he even admits that there was probably nothing that anyone could have done to prevent 9/11, but feels that the administration let us all down? :confused:

Clarke's own writings from 2000 are totally consumed with cyber-terrorism. Calling him THE expert on terrorism is a stretch, considering his specialization.

Then there is also the whole fact that he never said a word about any of this until the election year. What better time to release a book criticizing the President? Especially if you are wanting to make a million off of a book?

Finally he contradicts himself more than John Kerry...a tremendous feat to say the least.

Creditability? Slim to none, and Slim just left town.

My interest in the commission goes far beyond any partisan slant, and beyond whether or not Bush is helped or harmed by what comes out. The bottom line here is not whether or not the attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented, but rather was everything that could have been reasonably done actually implemented? If the government did everything they could, and they got us anyway, OK, I'm not happy about it, but we did our best.

However, if someone - anyone - dropped the ball on this, that is unacceptable, and the American people have the right to know. Yes, al Qaeda is ultimately responsible for this, but if there were things that could have been reasonably done - even if they only had a slim chance to stop the attack - they should have been done.

I'm up in the air on this right now. I feel confident that a lot of what Clarke says is true, but some things seem impossible to believe. For example, I believe him when he says that he repeatedly urged the administration to take more steps to look into al Qaeda, but the administration did not view the threat as imminent. I don't believe that Rice did not appear to have "ever heard the name al Qaeda" before Clarke brought it up. That one seems almost impossible to believe.

I also can't believe that Rice cannot make an exception to the tradition of not testifying in front of Congress. I am not saying that Rice did anything wrong, but to many people the fact that she will not testify suggests that she has something to hide. Those same people say if she has nothing to hide, why not testify? The fact that national security advisors have the right and in the past have chosen to claim executive priveledge and not testify before Congress is not at issue here. That right is something based on tradition, not law. In a case such as this, where the American public has the right to know, I feel an exception to tradition could and should be made.

Finally, this is only bad news for Bush. Looking at it objectively, I doubt Bush was responsible for dropping the ball - although someone almost certainly was - it's just that the President isn't the responsible party. However, this can change the perception of undecided voters, and more often than not these are the voters that decide the election. (Because chances are, if you already decided to vote for Bush or Kerry, there's little that can be done in the upcoming months that will cause you to change your mind.) And that's why it's bad for Bush - the best case scenario for him is this has no major impact on his re-election bid. I surely cannot envision a way where this will turn out to his advantage.

Edit: Spelling

[ March 30, 2004, 17:06: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

Well, I found this article to be of great insite into the hearings on 9/11.

From Strategic Forcasting:


Sorting Through the Accusations
Mar 26, 2004

Summary

The United States is in the process of picking apart the intelligence and political failures that led up to the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on Sept. 11, 2001. This is an unprecedented process. Normally such reviews occur after the war has ended. In this case, the review was made necessary by the president's failure to clean house after Sept. 11. That said, the truth of the matter would appear to be more complex than the simplistic charges being traded. The fact is, in our view, the Bush and Clinton policies were far more similar than they were different. We are not quite certain who we have insulted with that claim.

Analysis

Conducting a highly public inquiry and debate over the origins of a war while that war is being conducted would appear to be one of the most self-destructive exercises imaginable. No reasonable person could argue that mistakes were not made prior to Sept. 11, 2001, any more than it could be argued that mistakes were not made before Dec. 7, 1941. There is no question but that the intelligence system failed to predict the event and that it was supposed to.

But just as the Pearl Harbor inquiry was carried out after the war, so as not to interfere with the war effort, it would seem reasonable that the Sept. 11 inquiries should take place after the war is over. Officials and former officials hurling charges against each other in a public display of disunity does not seem to serve the national interest. There were secret investigations and discussions before World War II ended, but the public report by Congress was not released until July 1946 and not really undertaken in earnest until after the war ended.

It has been argued that the unlimited nature of this war makes waiting for the end impossible. But this war is not unique in appearing to be potentially endless. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one make the argument that previous wars would be temporally contained. As British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey so poignantly stated in 1914 -- at the start of World War I, the shortest of the 20th century's major conflicts -- "The lights are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime." The review could have waited.

However, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that George W. Bush set himself up for this, although not in the way his critics charge. One of the things that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did was to clean house after the Pearl Harbor attack. This housecleaning was not necessarily fair. Adm. Husband Kimmel, Commander in Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC), for example, was fired even though a strong case could be made that he was less responsible than others for Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, Pearl Harbor happened on his watch and he was gone.

It went deeper than that. Roosevelt wanted to signal that something had gone terribly wrong not only with one person but also with a generation of leaders. Relatively junior commanders Chester Nimitz and Dwight Eisenhower were catapulted into senior command positions. Not all of the old leaders were replaced -- consider Douglas MacArthur or George Marshall -- but there was a broad enough housecleaning that no one could escape the fact that the war had changed everything. You could argue that Roosevelt did this to protect himself, but if so, he was doing his job.

President Bush did not clean house after Sept. 11. He kept the same team in place with some very minor second-tier shifts. There was no whirlwind of activity designed to bring in a fresh, wartime team using streamlined procedures. He went with the team he had. There was a defensible case to be made for this. The country was in a state of shock, and an upheaval in the intelligence and defense communities was perceived to be an unnecessary follow-on shock to public morale. Moreover, the battle was joined, and changing commanders in the middle of the battle was dangerous.

Finally, there was a political aspect. The man who was institutionally responsible for detecting Sept. 11 was CIA Director George Tenet. He was 2001's Kimmel. Whether it was his fault or not, Sept. 11 was an intelligence failure. Tenet was in charge of intelligence, and it happened on his watch. Kimmel was sacked -- but Tenet was not a Bush appointee. He had been appointed by Bill Clinton. Bush began with a crippled presidency due to the Florida fiasco. He did not have the national authority of Roosevelt, and he badly needed bipartisan support. Bush obviously respected Tenet since he kept him on after his election. He might have decided to keep him on after Sept. 11 in order to help bulletproof his administration. Tenet was, after all, a Clinton appointee.

The problem with this strategy was that, rather than deflect inquiries, it made them unavoidable. After Dec. 7, those directly and visibly responsible for Pearl Harbor -- excepting the president and his key political appointees -- were removed from the chain of command. After Sept. 11, those most directly and visibly responsible remained in the chain of command. If there were mistakes made, then the people who made those mistakes were still in control of huge parts of the war effort. The question of whether these people were competent could not be avoided.

To put it a little differently: Unlike Roosevelt, Bush failed to armor himself against his political enemies. While Roosevelt, who had a lot more political weight in 1941-1942, successfully deflected political attacks by combining a sense of national emergency with a sense that he was taking steps to deal with the problem, Bush kept his team intact. That meant it was essential to examine their performance -- and their culpability, if any -- prior to Sept. 11.

Bush argued that the United States was in a war, but he never shifted his administration into a wartime mode. Failure -- real or perceived -- was never punished. Bush's one administrative innovation, Homeland Security, moves at a snail's pace. The armed forces did not undergo massive expansion, and the intelligence community was not torn apart and rebuilt in an emergency measure.

The war began with a massive surprise attack. Bush said there was a war going on, but somehow Bush never appeared to be reconfiguring his team for war. It undermined his ability to demand a pass until after the war was over because he sometimes did not act as if a war were going on. This has been noticed. Many Americans do not consider the Bush administration's "war on terror" to be a war at all.

What is most ironic is that an administration regarded as being so highly politicized has been, in fact, so politically incompetent. It is as if the administration never understood that this moment was coming and never prepared for it. It is particularly amazing because the charges against Bush administration -- at least in the way they have been framed -- are so weak. The administration is essentially being charged with two things: first, that it came into office obsessed with Iraq, to the extent that it was considering invading Iraq from the very first meetings it had on national security. Second, it is charged with failing to heed intelligence warnings about al Qaeda, downplaying the threat and therefore not taking actions that might have prevented the attack. Implicit in both these charges is the notion that Bush policies were fundamentally different from Clinton policies -- and that the Clinton policies were superior.

There is no question but that the Bush administration had a focus on Iraq and considered invading Iraq. The explanation that has been given is that this was the desire to complete Bush Senior's job. The actual answer does not require strained readings of Sigmund Freud. The fact is that the Bush administration was simply continuing the Clinton administration's policies on Iraq, virtually without change.

The very first briefings Bush was given when he took office had to have been about Iraq. That is because U.S. and British aircraft were carrying out constant combat operations over Iraq, patrolling the no-fly zones. These missions had been carried out from the end of Desert Storm -- during the administration of President George H. W. Bush -- throughout the Clinton years, under U.N. mandate. The Clinton administration at times intensified these attacks. In December 1998, for example, it carried out Operation Desert Fox in response to Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country. The Clinton administration also attempted on various occasions to overthrow Hussein through covert operations; Clinton also continued sanctions on Iraq.

None of these efforts were effective in bringing about change, but Clinton did not discontinue the combat operations, sanctions or desultory covert operations. Although it was generally felt that these were unsuccessful, Clinton was trapped by a lack of alternatives. He did not want to mount a full invasion. At the same time, he did not want to halt the ineffective actions against Hussein and signal American weakness, undermine the regional alliance and embolden Hussein. The patrols continued, as did occasional bombings of Iraq.

Given that the United States had been involved in combat operations in Iraq for more than a decade, one would hope that the first topic on President Bush's foreign policy agenda would have been Iraq. What else would it have been? Bush shared the view of the previous two presidents that halting operations was not possible and bringing Hussein's government down was a major U.S. foreign policy goal. The new administration obviously conducted an early review of how to bring closure to the U.S. Iraq policy.

In this review, it would have been noted that the Clinton policy had failed to achieve the stated goals. Continuing the policy of ineffective combat and covert operations coupled with sanctions was soaking up U.S. military and intelligence resources without achieving any goal. Bush accepted Clinton's premise that simply walking away was not an option. That left only intensified military options, the most certain of which would be an invasion.

Anyone thinking about Iraq in the spring of 2001 knew that the Clinton policy could not continue indefinitely. Obviously one faction was going to argue that since the United States could not walk away, the only solution was an invasion. That appears to be what several people thought, including Donald Rumsfeld. What is most noteworthy is that they were -- for the time being at least -- overruled. There was no invasion, nor any buildup in the region for an invasion. Bush decided, essentially by default, to continue Clinton's Iraq policy.

Now that may have been a defensible position, all things considered, or one could charge that Bush was continuing a failed foreign policy begun by his father. But charging that the Bush administration was unreasonably obsessed with overthrowing Hussein -- given the context which the Clinton and Bush Sr. administrations had created for them -- is truly stretching things.

If the Bush administration was obsessed with anything, it was China. When Donald Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense, he said that the new focus of U.S. defense policy would be Asia, and plans were rapidly drawn for redeploying forces there. The dominant event between Bush's inauguration and Sept. 11 was the crisis with China over the downing of the EP-3 aircraft over Hainan Island. Asia was reinforced. Iraq was not.

So too with the charge that Bush had failed to take al Qaeda seriously. To be more precise, there had been a persistent failure -- in both the Clinton and Bush administrations -- to take al Qaeda and radical Islamists seriously. Part of the fault lay directly with the CIA and the manner in which it collected intelligence and analyzed it -- but Bush's CIA director was the same as Clinton's. Blaming Bush for unique neglect of al Qaeda for eight months, after Clinton's eight years, is hard to fathom. Indeed, part of the fault lies with some of the terrorism experts now critical of Bush. When their record is examined, many did warn about al Qaeda, but over the course of their careers they had issued similar warnings about so many groups that it was hard to distinguish the real from the fantastic. It was a profession that had cried wolf too many times.

The Bush failure was the same as the Clinton failure. Both administrations looked at al Qaeda as the heir of the Palestinian terrorist movement of the 1970s and 1980s. They would set off a few bombs, kill no more than a few dozen people, hijack planes and represent an irritant and a nuisance far more than a strategic threat. Their rhetoric was extreme, but no more extreme than that of other groups that never were able to match rhetoric with action.

The misevaluation of al Qaeda was a systemic failure that ran from the CIA to the American public. We recall no public outcry for increased expenditures on intelligence and counterterrorism in the 1990s. Nor was there massive public unrest when -- after attacks against Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the East African embassies or the USS Cole in Yemen, all of which claimed American lives -- a major effort to destroy al Qaeda was not undertaken. As a nation, the United States calmly accepted the danger. For the Clinton administration to claim that it had devoted major resources and made a great effort to hunt down and destroy al Qaeda is simply not true. To their credit, both former Defense Secretary William Cohen and Secretary of State Madeline Albright testified this week that their efforts against al Qaeda were both thin and constrained by public disinterest. In its policy of inaction, the Clinton team was simply tracking the American public's mood.

There are two charges that can be legitimately leveled against George W. Bush. The first is that, in spite of knowing that the Clinton policy on Iraq was ineffective, he neither ended the containment of Hussein nor moved to destroy him. Bush carried on Clinton's policies unchanged. The second charge is that Bush did not increase the level of effort taken to destroy al Qaeda, but essentially followed the Clinton administration's policy of watching and hoping for a low-risk, low-cost moment to act -- a moment that Osama bin Laden was too smart to give them.

In our view, the most serious charge that can be made against Bush is not that he continued -- unchanged -- key Clinton policies before Sept. 11, but that he did not drastically reshape his administration for war after Sept. 11. He left in place the man who was responsible for the failure to understand, locate and destroy al Qaeda under President Bill Clinton and inexplicably left him and others in place, even after his failures became manifest on -- and after -- Sept. 11.

This was, in our view, a serious error in judgment. It may be an unforgivable one. But to hold Bush's eight months in office as having been more responsible for al Qaeda's emergence than Clinton's eight years in office -- not to mention the Carter and Reagan administrations' responsibility for encouraging militant Islam -- strikes us as strange reasoning. Sept. 11 was planned, and it was being implemented while Clinton was president. Bush simply adopted wholesale -- and extended -- Clinton's errors.

This is not an argument for Clinton or Bush. Given the mood of the country, it is unlikely that any president would have done much differently. Had either man proposed invading Afghanistan prior to Sept. 11, both would have been labeled as certifiably insane. The problem was rooted in the mind-set that had enamored the American people after the end of the Cold War: a belief that the world had become a safe place to live and that those who said otherwise were alarmist cranks.

Sept. 11 was a systemic failure of the nation, for which both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty. Bush's errors in judgment did not occur before the war, but after the war began. The current attempt to prove some spectacular failure by Bush before the war makes political sense, but it is intellectually incoherent and misses the places where Bush made genuine errors. Bush did fail. He failed to hold the intelligence community responsible for its failures, tear it apart and rebuild it. He failed to find a Nimitz to run the CIA. We regard this as an enormously serious charge against him. For the rest, he shares responsibility with his predecessor -- and with the rest of us.

@Llandon - Is a more precise citation in order?

I see the Strategic Forecasting part, but who publishes this, who is the author, is it politically neutral, etc.?

@ Darkie (good to see you back, old chum)
Sorry DR, but this has no traction except with those who already hate Bush so much that they wouldn't believe it if Clarke came out and admitted that he has a personal axe to grind. Speak for yourself, my friend. Bush's poll numbers with regard to the his handling of 9/11 have plummeted recently, from 70% a month ago down to 53%. This hurts him more than you seem to realize, or at least acknowledge. Believe me, this has plenty of traction.
First off, I believe that the next time a National Security Advisor testifies in front of Congress with be the first time. If it has happened, it is extremely rare. Sandy Berger testified in both 1994 and 1997. Condi could wave priviledge any time she wants and testify. Just because it's rare doesn't mean it couldn't, and shouldn't, happen. If, as she claims, she has nothing to hide, why not declare Clarke a fraud under oath? Every day she goes without testifying makes the administration look more like they have something to hide. As if Bush fighting the commission tooth and nail in the first place wasn't enough of an indicator.
Clarke admitted that the Clinton administration had no anti-terrorism policies or plans to pass on to the Bush administration Funny, I've read exactly the opposite. Source?
Calling him THE expert on terrorism is a stretch, considering his specialization. This specialization shifted out of frustration with the way the incoming administration had treated the focus on terrorism. One with his experience can certainly have more than one specialty.
Finally he contradicts himself more than John Kerry...a tremendous feat to say the least.

Creditability? Slim to none, and Slim just left town.Then it shouldn't be too difficult for his contradictions to be documented publicly. After all, he has just testified under oath, hasn't he? If he's a liar, and proven so, then he is guilty of purgery, isn't he? I would say the stakes are quite high. If he's so full of sh*t, and with the urgency of Bush's staff "greasing the wheels of industry" so to speak, he'll be brought up on purgery charges within the next few weeks, all his credibility in total doubt, tying him up in court and guaranteeing no one will take him seriously again.

Believe me, if he's lying, I want to know. If he's misleading us, which will essentially mean his apology to the 9/11 families would be deplorable to say the least, I want to know about it. If the Bush administration is truly as honest, correct, and morally untouchable as they say they are, I want to know. But wether you want to admit it or not, there's ample evidence to suggest otherwise. As Aldeth pointed out, those who are already decided won't be swayed by this for the most part. But the swing voters are already starting to show their outrage, and the Bushies are certainly shooting themselves in the foot about every 5 minutes lately. So we'll see.

Sorry guys and gals....I guess I should have given more info on StratFor.

It seems to be a completely non partisian web site, and a really great one at that!

Please check out their web page here. It costs way too much money to join it as a full member(for me at least.....but they do give snipits of info and insite for free from time to time.

Check here:

http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/static_index.neo

they wouldn't believe it if Clarke came out and admitted that he has a personal axe to grind.
So, we've had Clarke, Paul O'Neil, and Wilson. All of whom are disgruntled and have an axe of some sort. :rolleyes:


Second, even Time (an very liberal medial outlet) has discredited Clarke: Maybe Compared to Fox.

:rolleyes: And you mean the same liberal Time that made Shrub Person of the Year in 2000. :rolleyes:

http://www.time.com/time/poy2000/

Wow! How liberal.

@Chandos

They also made Hitler and Khomeni person of the year. The distinction goes to the person who they feel had the most impact that year. Receiving the distinction is not necessarily positive.

But then you knew that already.

On topic:

I don't believe Clarke or Bush. The truth will never come out.

DR,

Thanks for the welcome back, I hope the warm fuzzy feeling continues! :p


You are deluding yourself if you believe that this will decide the election. Most people in this country are only aware of the headlines regarding this hearing, not the substance, and in 2 weeks it will have completely blown over, Clarke will write "mission accomplished" (hitting #1 on the best seller lists) in his journal, and most people will go back to their original beliefs regarding the war. As the head into the voting booths, the performance of the economy over the months prior to the election will with the deciding factor in most people's minds, and this hearing will be way down the list of secondary considerations. You give the average American citizen way too much credit regarding their knowledge of current events and memory.

As far as CR refusing to testify, I would guess it is for the same reasons that the Clinton Administration refused to allow Clarke to testify in front of the special committee on the Y2K scare back in 1999. There are valid reasons why those who interact directly with the President do not testify in front of open committees. I will not hijack this tread but the have to do with not being put in a position where they cannot defend themselves or the Administration without giving up classified info.

Regarding my statement to there being no plans, I definitely over stepped that one. Clarification, there were no plans regarding Al Qeada that were passed on to the Bush administration.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

This specialization shifted out of frustration with the way the incoming administration had treated the focus on terrorism. One with his experience can certainly have more than one specialty.
That frustration must have begun with the Clinton Administration, as it was back in 1999 when Clarke started spouting his mantra that the greatest threat from terrorism is in cyber-space. If he knew so much, why didn't he quite prior to 9/11, or even come out right after 9/11 and tell everyone what he "knew" then?

Finally,

Then it shouldn't be too difficult for his contradictions to be documented publicly. After all, he has just testified under oath, hasn't he? I never said he perjured himself. Please scroll up and read the Time article I linked above. He can say anything he wants when not under oath (as long as he is not slandering), and then go tell a different story under oath, and as long as he sticks by the story he told when he was under oath, and no one can prove he provided untrue statements of fact while under oath, there is no perjury, just completely blown credibility. ;)

That was my zircon posting (#350), is zircon a natural jem stone, or is it just a creation of man? :confused:

Even Democrats now say privately that Bush and his soft serums may be better suited to cure the disease that afflicts the capital. With a Congress almost perfectly bisected, Republicans thirsty for power and Democrats for revenge, Bush is the one holding the needle and thread. He has always said he would reach across party lines; now he has no choice. For the office he won, and for tough job ahead, George W. Bush is TIME's Person of the Year.
Jack Funk - Have you spotted a trend? Well, there is an adage that there is no such thing as "bad publicity." But as you can see the words are hardly negative. It is not often that I agree with Time's choice. And - surprise - as things turned out, they had no idea what they were talking about.

[ March 30, 2004, 17:31: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

@ Darkie
If he knew so much, why didn't he quite prior to 9/11, or even come out right after 9/11 and tell everyone what he "knew" then? Come on, you know the answer to this. Clarke was known for his dedication and loyalty to the administration he was serving under, Republican or Democrat (though Clarke is a Republican). And even if he were the Liberal shill people are unsuccessfully trying to make him out to be, the political climate in the last two years has been that any criticism of the president, especially in the 6 months after 9/11, was considered downright treasonous. "How can you criticize the president!? We're at WAR! Why do you hate America?" Besides, no good would have come from a monday-morning quarterback job at that point. What was important at that point was not who screwed up, but how we answer this threat. He could have made a big stink about every single one of his recommendations being ignored before 9/11 and adopted AFTER 9/11 when it was too late, but what would that solve? The issue afterwards was to focus on the elimination of al Quaeda. Which was going fine...until we shifted all resources and focus to a bogus war with Iraq who, despite the obvious connotation of being our greatest perceived enemy and the Bush administration implying they had something to do with 9/11, was a completely unnecessary distration that COULD HAVE WAITED until after al Quaeda was rounded up and eliminated.

The reason he's coming out now is because he knows better than anyone that Bush running his re-election almost entirely on the basis that he's impecably handling the war on terrorism is preposterous. If you can honestly say with a straight face that invading Iraq actually made a dent in al Quaeda, and wasn't the best recruitment tool Osama ever could've asked for, I must say I admire your faith, I guess.

As for your link of what he said in 2002, I believe Clarke stated that was him being ordered by Bush to "play up the good and leave out the bad," otherwise known as "spin" by a faithful public servant who's done that more than once for a president he served under.

I never said he perjured himself. My point was about more than the penalty for perjury. In both testifying publicly and writing a book detailing his entire case, he's leaving himself and his record open for intense scrutiny. This either means he's an idiot or he's the real deal. My point was that if he's so wrong, and he has no credibility as you say, than debunking what he has to say should be a cakewalk for an administration who accells at the counter attack. So far they've fallen face first and caught totally with their pants down, despite the White House delaying the publication of Clarke's book before publication by over 3 months (which kind of hurts the whole "he's timing it to be political" arguement).

There are valid reasons why those who interact directly with the President do not testify in front of open committees. Of course there are. But Condi can still testify and invoke her executive privelage during the testimony itself when she comes to an answer that she feels would somehow jeopardize national security. She could simply say "I can't tell you that," answer what she can and move on to the next question. You have to admit, it doesn't make her look very good that she can tell her side to a million talk shows, with NO rebuttal whatsoever, where she won't ever be held accountable for what she says, whereas if she were under oath the opposite would be true.

[edit - Never mind - it looks like she caved. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/rice.testimony/index.html) ]

If not under oath, perhaps a face-to-face debate with Clarke is in order? Like I said - if he's so full of sh*t, it should be easy to prove. And by doing so would make Bush look incredibly good and Kerry look incredibly bad. So why are they panicking?
I hope the warm fuzzy feeling continues! Just mind your manners, and we'll be fine. :shake:

[ March 30, 2004, 17:58: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

Sorry DR, but the "loyalty" claim stinks. No one should show loyalty to anyone for a single second if they are complicit in a single death, never mind more than 3,000. :cry:

I will remember you said that. Oh boy, will I ever.

@Chandos

Leave it to you to use my example to take a weak shot. Really lame. Even for you.

You were wrong in the first place. Just admit it. Time is liberal.

the "loyalty" claim stinks. No one should show loyalty to anyone for a single second if they are complicit in a single death, never mind more than 3,000. Kind of like how Bush showed loyalty to all of the high ranking members of various intelligence agencies?

By keeping all of them on, Bush basically said that those responsible did the best they could given the resources and policies in place at that time. If true, then it further suggests that the resources and policies in place were inadequate for the task at hand, which ultimately means that culpability would fall on Bush - and that's why there's concern in the administration. It's not good if you "War President" was in a way responsible for the start of the War on Terror in the first place. :shame:

By keeping all of them on, Bush basically said that those responsible did the best they could given the resources and policies in place at that time. If true, then it further suggests that the resources and policies in place were inadequate for the task at hand, which ultimately means that culpability would fall on Bush I totally agree that the resources and policies in place at the time were inadequate. Of course since 9/11 was only 8 months into the Bush Administration the blame for that would fall on the previous Administration, oh and on the people in Congress who voted for bill after bill cutting spending on intelligence (read J. Kerry).

If you will do some additional research you will find that Bush was already starting to ramp up intelligence spending, and aggressively pursued expansion of our intelligence capabilities after the attack.

JF - What's lame is that you chose some sorry examples. But not to worry too much. You can say "I told you so," when Time votes John Kerry Person of the Year in 2005. Have a nice day, Jack.

Of course since 9/11 was only 8 months into the Bush Administration the blame for that would fall on the previous Administration Blaming the Clinton administration is not all that relevant, seeing as how the attack didn't occur on his watch. Regardless of what his policies were, they were evidently good enough to prevent a terrorist attack within the U.S. for the 8 years he was steering the ship. If we are to believe that terror was a "top priority" for the Bush administration, 8 months should have been adequate time to get something on the boards. From what Clarke says, the plan they released one week before the attacks was nearly identical to the plan he had submitted several months earlier (I think it was submitted in March) - why the delays?

They were? What about the first attack on the World Trade center?

Good counterpoint - that was 1993 wasn't it? Still, it pales in comparison to what took place in 2001. Still you're right.

Don't get me wrong, the report is certainly not going to do much for the Clinton administration in how they handled things. They did very little to upset al Qaeda while they were in power. There was the attack in 1998 where they launched a few dozen tomohawk missile at a couple of terrorist camps and a suspect chemical factory, but other than that nothing.

I think the problem here is that Bush didn't trust anything from the Clinton Presidency, and didn't see the benefit of continuing Clinton's policies regarding al Qaeda. Instead of expanding upon what Clinton had done, it appears that even less was done prior to 9/11. Granted, in Bush's first year as president the economy was already starting to go in the toilet, so he had domestic concerns that had to be dealt with as well, but the issue here seems to be that Clinton did very little, and Bush did nothing. It was only a matter of time before people starting pointing fingers. I'm just surprised it took this long to start...

Well it's an election year isn't it? There isn't a better time to point fingers.

I think it's a little silly trying to point fingers at any one person. It's even more silly how it's so political. Even here on this board. Those who like Bush will support him no matter what, and those who oppose him will try to nitpic at every thing they can find that paints his administration in a bad light.

I'm glad you mentioned the attacks on Sudan and Afganistan in 1998. Clinton was rediculed for those attacks at the time. One of the main arguements against Clinton, at the time, was that he used the attacks to take attention away from the Monica Lowinski hearings. That they weren't necessary, and that they were unwarranted. Now people wish that he had done more. Hind-site really is 20/20.

The bottom line is that ALL of the past administrations(lets say from Carter till now) are to blame for the 9/11 attacks. It's just way too complex.

Lastly, I think people put way too much emphasis on the office of President.

I remember bombs for Monica. The second term of the Clinton administration was overshadowed by a small incident with an intern. There also happened to be a war, wag the dog and a constant linkage between war and scandal. I think the Clinton administration had bound hands to some degree, not to say that the losses of human lives seemed small up to that time, which propably wouldn't get the backing for an invasion.

I think one of the main counter-terroristic points was implented recently through the Bush-administration. The replacement of troops formerly stationed in Saudi-Arabia, where they caused some disturbance, the bad point in my view would than only remain in being through causing a even greater disturbance.

As I see it, shoulda, woulda, coulda won't help here anything. Searching, looking at things and learn, that's a good thing for sure. But I don't think that looking into past matters here will cause an earthquake.

As for the consequences for Bush, from the matter at hand only if there would be some very surprising and astonishing news reveiled, like they had a clear warning or something like that. I doubt that. That Bush made it to become president is in itself such a miracle, that everything else just pales. The US seems to be a deeply divided society and Bush just a sideeffect of that situation. So, he took some spectucular time off of office. I think everyone knew that at that time already and most didn't care. It never mattered, why would it suddenly begin to matter ?

The only thing that Bush has to fear is, that the split in the society changes a little bit, from 48/52 to 52/48 or that he upsets people, that wouldn't normally vote.

The fact that Clarke did not come out with his accusations UNTIL the time that his book was scheduled to be released, should discredit him in the minds of all objective persons.

Can you say "Pete Rose"?

You can bet that his well timed public attack on the Administration was planned by some scum-bag publicist. I rest better at night knowing that both Clarke and his scum-bag publicist will be able to afford that lovely summer home on the island.

:roll: :spin: :roll: :spin:

Spin Doctors.

Mr. Clarke...your 15 minutes is up.

The fact that Clarke did not come out with his accusations UNTIL the time that his book was scheduled to be released, should discredit him in the minds of all objective persons.
To me, it seems that Clark has some deep-seeded hatred towards the Bush administration, and no doubt he would like for the Bush administration to be hurt as much as possible by the accusation. However, if that is true, why release the book in March? Why not wait until at least the late summer when we're closer to the election to come forward?

The fact that Clarke did not come out with his accusations UNTIL the time that his book was scheduled to be released, should discredit him in the minds of all objective persons. That makes no sense. It was very smart of him to come out with his message at the same time his long, public, well-detailed memoire was released to reinforce his points to be scrutinized and layed all out for everyone to see. The fact that the White House released their attack dogs on him so quickly is actually an indication that he's not nearly as "uncredible" as some like to make him out to be.
You can bet that his well timed public attack on the Administration was planned by some scum-bag publicist. You know, you're right. It was those "scum-bag publicists" in the White House who delayed the release of Clarke's book for 3 months. Those bastards! I mean if it had come out on time, it wouldn't have been drowned-out completely by all the Dean melt-down hubbub, and lost in the bickering of the democratic debates. No, not at all. That Clarke sure is a slick, slick fella.

PS - I notice you choose to attack the messenger, not the message. Nice one. Only makes him look MORE credible when people do that, by the way.

Plus, the commission was scheduled for now anyway. Wouldn't Clark have been interviewed by the Commission regardless of whether or not his book had come out now, and wouldn't he have supposedly given the same answers, regardless of whether his book came out now, 3 months ago, or 3 months from now?

@Chandos [snip] - I don't even know what the hell you are talking about at this point. How about getting/staying on topic or giving it a rest?

[Insulting nickname removed, warning pending.] -Tal

[ April 02, 2004, 14:05: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

@Jack Funk and Chandos

I've been following this little discourse of yours for the past while. I've allowed things to slide, and at this point still haven't seen a clear cut violation of the rules. But ... you're both getting close. Pull back a little and relax.

[I'll second that request. Take the sniping to PM if you have to - BTA]

[ March 31, 2004, 22:30: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Oh well, and I really missed that thread??? Yummy! My two cents:

As I see it Clarke basically accuses Bush to be an imposter - that is - he accuses Bush of playing Mr. Tough-Guy-On-Terror while he had actually been ... at the ranch or wherever and letting his goons focus on non-issues like missile defense where the USS Cole, not that far away when Bush entered office, starkly underlined that terror was an acute problem.

Worse, even after 911, when the threat of terror manifested itself painfully obvious, Bush still follwed the neo-con rogue-state script, when he was actually facing a non state actor. Instead of finishing the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan he turned to Iraq, another issue that came into office with the Bush crew.

That's it: Clarke wrecks Bush's image as the successful terror-fighter. In fact, Bush's war on Iraq has made America less safe (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/05/1081017101957.html). And that hits, bullseye.

And that is why the white house fears and smears him.

As for Clarke's motivation - I think he understands that terror is an imminent threat that this administration, by ideological fundamental philosophy, fails to understand (that is, the neo-cons will likely remain with Bush if he's re-elected) and fails to adress adequately (maybe by foolishly invading more countries after the election - you know - bold foreign policy a la Perle & Wolfie), and that this threat will transcend the election of 2004.
Form that point of view it is only consequent, more, necessary to damage Bush to prevent more neo-con blundering and further harm from the US.

That would be highly patriotic and be quite a rare and remarkable display of integrity - in the end the security of America is not about GOP or Dems on power. As a public servant who served in 4 administrations and under both GOP and Dems he must understand that. That issue, underlined by 911, is too serious to be left to partisan politics. So if it damages Bush? So be it. It's not about him or GOP, it's about America.

He didn't write his book for profit. Clarke must have known what he will have to endure once the smear mashine is in full swing. That's not fun and sure not worth the money.
What he does requires courage and spine. Someday, the partisan assaults on him will be recognized as the highest of compliments.

The last of Clarke's credibility is shot (if he ever had any). The fact is he stated that al Qeada was of imminent importance to the Clinton administration, and Clinton backed him up stating that they (the Clinton administration) discussed al Qeada every day.

The funny thing is, in the final report on the international security threats to the US, the very same one that was passed on to the Bush administration, al Queda is not mentioned once. (A document that was published to the public prior to the 9/11 commission) In a 44,000 word document regarding international threats to the US they forgot to mention something that was a daily worry? :confused:

Oh yeah, bin Laden's name is printed 4 times. This is in a document that if published as a hard cover book would be 222 pages long, and he gets his name printed 4 times?

Yep, I bet al Queda was a big topic with Clarke and Clinton. :rolleyes:

Clarke is a willing tool of the DNC.

If Clarke isn't in it for the money let him donate all his earning to the widows of the widows of the families of those who have died as a result of the ranting of people like him, Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy and Terry McAuliffe. These people are not discussing or making valid points. They are making inflammatory, unfounded, and unproven comments solely intended to discredit Bush (Such as McAuliffe’s claim that Bush was AWOL while he was in the National Guard. Bush released his medical records to disprove this, now where are Kerry's? Come on Kerry, let’s see the proof behind those Purple Hearts you got without ever seeing a Dr! :rolleyes: ). These quotes and stories are regularly reported by al-Jazeera, which just encourages more attacks. Yeah Clarke, Kennedy and McAuliffe are representing Kerry and the Democratic Party verrry responsibly.

As far as Ragusa's article, well, you can stand up to them now, stand up to them later, or let them win, but do not be mistaken to the belief that there is some middle ground out there to meet radical Islam on. There is also no way to stand up to them without inflaming them. Send surrogates, or operatives to assassinate their leaders, and sooner or later the cat gets out of the bag, and then you have an international scandal (and a bunch of pissed off terrorists). Go after them directly and you get the Kennedy treatment (and a bunch of pissed off terrorists). This leaves negotiation, but radical Islamics don't want to negotiate, except as a means to becoming stronger for future attacks. I hope and pray that the American people, and the people of the world, realize that these terrorists want something that we cannot give them unless we are willing to give up our allies and our way of life. As Patrick Henry so eloquently put it - "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!". I don't consider living the life that radical Islam preaches as embodying liberty. :mad:

Don't tell me that silly fairytale of the islamo-fascist hordes at the gates, waiting to destroy your western way of life or that we head into the unavoidable clash of the cultures ( :rolleyes: great and convenient point of view - if the clash is unavoidable anyway, why stop and ponder - Ready! Aim! Fire! :rolleyes: And don't even need to question your approach too :roll: ). You don't believe that yourself I hope. Geez. The west is nowhere near to be run over by militant islam. You ignore, or don't believe, that militant islam still is a fringe.

Great bit on that part: It was never going to be easy to keep a sense of perspective in the face of a terrorist campaign as violent as the one being waged by al-Qaida; some have found it harder than others. The claim by James Woolsey, the former CIA director, that we are in the process of fighting "world war three" stands out as a particularly silly example of the hyperbolic overdrive that has characterised much of the debate over the past two-and-a-half years. So does Tony Blair's assertion that the terrorist threat is "existential" in its scope.

Islamist terrorism poses a threat to the physical existence of those who stand to be killed as a result of its actions, as yesterday's news of a plot to explode a chemical bomb in Britain reminded us. But it is not comparable to the threat posed to western democracy and European Jewry by Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s, let alone the prospect of nuclear annihilation during the cold war. Policy choices that proceed from that assumption are almost certain to be wrong.

For similar reasons it is nonsense to argue that America and her allies are "losing the war on terror". Al-Qaida's capacity to carry out horrific acts of violence may continue to grow, but its real mission - to establish a pan-Islamic theocracy - is doomed to end in failure. Even a Talibanised Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be too enfeebled to present much more than a temporary and localised threat. The ideology of Islamism will remain contained by the backwardness it shares with other forms of religious fundamentalism ...

from: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1187326,00.html Clarke accuses Bush to have focused on Iraq soon after 911 instead of finishing the fight on Al Qaeda first. Well, senior british diplomats actually confirm Clarke was right (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1185407,00.html). Obviously, a partisan smear campaign on part of the brits - don't you see the timing to the US election campaign :rolleyes: are there any friends left today? :rolleyes: Truly, the US stands alone! :cry: Really, that "It's all anti-Bush party- bias" nonsense is pathetic.

Clarke could be as right as he well might be, you would don't want to believe him anyway because he damages your man - Bush - Boo-Hoo! Not everything is a partisan smear attack - that is life made easy.

Ragusa,

I completely disagree with the article you have quoted from. This has the potential to grow into something much greater. It is the ultimate goal of the radical Islamics to convert the world to their views, just as it is the goal of Christians to spread Christianity across the globe (historically even if it meant killing people to prove themselves right).

You are correct that the west is not overrun with extremist Islamics. But the number of attacks by Islamics in the west is increasing. In France they are already having such problems with attacks on Jews and Jewish property that they are advising Jews to hide their outward symbols of their religious beliefs.

I would think as a child of a nation that was taken over by a minority group that no one thought was a threat, you would be more sensitive to such actions, but apparently just the opposite is true. If you believe that radical Islam will be satisfied with just having a nation, or 2, or the entire Middle East, you sorely underestimate the avarice that is contained in man. Very few people are ever satisfied with what they have, they always want more.

Just as the scorpion states in a famous parable, "It is my nature".

I can't comment on you link regarding senior British officials, the link doesn't work for me, though other links on the page do. Sorry

@ Darkwolf

Honestly, sometimes your intellectual dishonesty astonishes me.
Oh yeah, bin Laden's name is printed 4 times. This is in a document that if published as a hard cover book would be 222 pages long, and he gets his name printed 4 times? If you had actually read any portion of the report (hint: I have!) you would have noticed that even though bin Laden is mentioned only four times by name (as if that's insignificant when it's uncommon for people to be mentioned by name in such reports), "terrorism" is mentioned 7 times in the introduction alone, and 58 times in the section called "implementing the strategy." So what if the report didn't mention al Queda by name? You assert that terrorism was basically fluffed off by Clark and Clinton, and it's just not true. This is yet another example of you believing exactly what you want to believe. Why not start disproving what he is saying and not why YOU think he is saying it?
Clarke is a willing tool of the DNC. Speaking of people making making inflammatory, unfounded, and unproven comments. :rolleyes:

For god sakes, Clarke is a Republican! He voted for John McCain in the last election, and both Reagan and Bush I. You people seem to think that because he's friends with people running Kerry's campaign that he's in cahoots with them, which, considering how many people in Washington tend to be friends with people in other parties, especially if they are former colleagues, is just laughable. And the fact that he's written a book just shows that he's willing to lay his entire case out in the open for the whole world to read, judge, and scrutinize. Unlike certain administration officials who refuse to testify under oath...or even alone.

Has anyone been able to debunk the facts in his book yet? NO. If Clarke's account is a lie, the White House should have ample documentation to prove that the events he said took place either did/didn't happen, and they so far can't do that. I mean, why do that when you can just call him a Lefty Goon and be done with it, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? Gimme a break. Either disprove what he is saying and not why YOU think he's saying it, or shut up.

If you honestly think that Kennedy, McCaulife, and Kerry being shown on al Jazeera denouncing the war is what is inspiring terrorism, you're more of a right-wing shill than I thought.

Al Jazeera - Click the top link under "features" (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3610579.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3608315.stm

Honestly, which do you think has a bigger impact on the Muslim world in strengthening the resolve of our enemies? Kerry, Kennedy and others saying what most of the world agrees with (that Iraq is a total sham), or pictures of women and children with their heads blown off at the hands of our own soldiers, following the orders of the President and the Pentagon? Whether our soldiers intended to/were ordered to kill those civilians is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that is how the Arab world is seeing it.
you can stand up to them now, stand up to them later, or let them win, but do not be mistaken to the belief that there is some middle ground out there to meet radical Islam on. There is also no way to stand up to them without inflaming them. Well, that would be a decent arguement - if not for the fact that the Iraqi's were are currently in battle with are not the Saddam-loyal Sunnis, but the Shiites, whom were really our biggest supporters initially once Saddam was overthrown. Thanks to the policies of this administration, we aren't fighting the radicals anymore. We're fighting everyone.

As for the Viet Nam comparisons being "unfounded" - wrong. We attack, they retailiate. They attack, we retaliate. They don't want us there, and neither do the majority of our citizens. Our president and administration have misled us as to the reasons why we are there, has put us in debt to pay for it, and stubbornly refuses to include other world leaders in the reconstruction because they didn't buy the now FALSE WMD claims. There is NO end to Iraq in sight. We have NO exit strategy. There appears to have been little or no planning. We had no idea what we were getting ourselves into.

How is that NOTHING like Viet Nam?

If you could take your "I HATE ALL THINGS LIBERAL" sunglasses off for 5 minutes, maybe you would see what is at stake by conducting this war in the manner that we have been. Before 9/11, Osama and many other radical Islamic nutcases were seen as just that - nutcases, even by the majority of the Arab world. In Osama's propaganda, he would say that the great satan America would wage war on an oil-rich muslim country, unprovoked, and occupy it. So what did we do? Exactly that. Now al Quaeda is getting more recruits then they can handle, the Taliban and Osama's lietenants were allowed to regroup in Afganistan after all of the Marine special forces units tracking them down were pulled out and sent to Iraq,

Please tell me how doing EXACTLY what Osama said we would do is effective at conquering Islamic fundamentalists, and how John Kerry pointing out the obvious is somehow going to get us all killed.

There is NO end to Iraq in sight. We have NO exit strategy. I'd say it's more like South Korea. As the months pass, our total number of forces in Iraq will decrease, but I foresee the U.S. stationing a fairly large number of troops (say on the order of around 30,000) there on a permanent basis. There is no exit strategy, because we aren't planning on leaving.

I'd say it's more like South Korea. As the months pass, our total number of forces in Iraq will decrease, but I foresee the U.S. stationing a fairly large number of troops (say on the order of around 30,000) there on a permanent basis. There is no exit strategy, because we aren't planning on leaving. Hm, if this is about comparing places and events, I'd say a South-Korea like outcome is the very, very, very best outcome one could hope for (A "North-Korea" would not exist anyway, as their is no major power neat that needs some breathing space from an other major power that got uncomfortably close). And staying in South-Korea isn't that bad for the common soldier.

I think the Brits and Amis are walking in the footsteps of the French and are making their own Algerian-Expirience. But that's just my opinion, yours may differ.

As for staying a long, long time. I think that was part of the plan in the beginning. Only my view, yours may differ.

You are correct that the west is not overrun with extremist Islamics. But the number of attacks by Islamics in the west is increasing. In France they are already having such problems with attacks on Jews and Jewish property that they are advising Jews to hide their outward symbols of their religious beliefs.
About terrorism and France as target, which also got mentioned some posts above. I do not think that Algerian terrorism ever has ceased to exist, it may for times only have been reduced. Concerning the hatred that some Algerians bear against the French... With some dorks running around proclaiming their pride in having tortured Algerians... No need to wonder. Such scars last. That's no comparision, that's my opinion about the French and that they messed up big time in Algeria and still have to live with some unresolved questions of that time.

As for the attacks on jews. I think it is well known, that when you have large amounts of people in a country, who "feel" they are involved in another conflict, that the host country will have to deal with that "imported/immigrated" problem. Hm, sound strange what I write. Think the Dutch and the Danes are in a war and a there's a big population of both in Iceland. Tension propably will rise among the group-members in Iceland too. I think a lot of people feeling a nationalist link to the middle-east are trying to simulate wars in the ME with defensless victims where they live.

In short, religion mixed with politics always produces disaster. If religion is mixed into national mythology, as I think is happening in the ME and India since more then a century (Thank you Ghandi... not), the results are unbearable.

[ April 08, 2004, 20:06: Message edited by: Iago ]

Creditability? Slim to none, and Slim just left town. Actually, Slim is back. And for this usage, it's "Credability." Discounting Richard Clarke, the man who served our country for the past 30 years, many of those as the counterterrorism chief, is outrageous. As are many of the other rash statements that have been made in this thread.

Darkwolf, I would think as a child of a nation that was taken over by a minority group that no one thought was a threat, you would be more sensitive to such actions, but apparently just the opposite is true. That is an interesting argument, and an old one. And as an old argument it has proven itself persuasive, the content is interchangeable.

The Nazis used it to warn of a "Verjudung" (in brief: the general term used to describe a jewish plot everywhere, a conspiracy spreading) of germany and the world. I think you're very much hyperbole when you look at Islam. That is not meat to accuse you of racism, just to show you what it points to. An islamic threat is spreding, we have to act NOW! Boo-hoo. Hysterical nonsense.
IMO the current US path of agressive use of force in the islamic world could well bring us to the point of a clash of the culture: The cure as the actual factor that brings forth the illness. Cofer Black's remarks hint to that.

As for not agreeing with that article: The brits are pretty much among the top 3 of countrys with sucessful counterinsurgency expertise in the world. It takes a fool to dismiss their expericenes, gained over half a century, with the slight of a hand as wrong.

And I agree with Iago on France and Algeria. The Algerians wandered to France as a result of the colonial age, and conflicts with them result from the mistakes France made in Algeria, and the discrimination and unequal chances they had ever since.
Being an Algerian in France today givey you a good chance to end up unemploeyed. That is, the largest problems the French have with the Algerians are of a socio-economical nature.

And for this usage, it's "Credability."Actually, it's credibility. Just thought it should be spelled right in the third attempt, at least.

Time to tear away a little of the "Bush was too focused on Iraq" crap that the Democrats are running.

Here is a nice little quote from Bob Kerry (Democratic Senator) from a statement he made on the Senate floor following the attack on the USS Cole (10/19/2000):

"In my opinion [the attack on the Cole] is part of a military strategy designed to defeat the United States as we attempt to accomplish a serious and vital mission. I hope we will direct the anger and desire for vengeance we feel away from Yemen and towards Saddam Hussein ... I can think of no more fitting tribute to the 17 sailors lost on-board the Cole than completing our mission and helping the Iraqi people achieve freedom and democracy." I guess it is OK for the Democrats to assume that Iraq was behind an attack, but it is different when the Republican President asks his staff to make sure that Iraq wasn't involved in another attack. :rolleyes:

I wonder why Mr. Kerry had no comment on Dr. Rice's testimony. :confused: :lol:

And can we expect you to come down from your partisan dope? What's the point in changing the subject to dig out an old sock, something Kerry said some 4 years ago?

Kerry's statement implies that he then thought Iraq was behind the attack on the USS Cole. Republicans at that time said just the same stuff. That was what then about everyone guessed, the lack of evidence nonwithstanding. Now that it is overly clear that Saddam didn't have anything to do with Al Qaeda no one, Kerry included, would seriously repeat such a statement, except maybe crazies like Dick Cheney, Laurie Myrloie or maybe Ann Coulter.

Didn't Bush utter something about a humble foreign policy without those overseas deployments that took place under Clinton during his election campaign, only to declare his new Grand Strategy, basically your standard issue Project Hubris, based on agressive preemption just two years later?

Clarke sais in the essence not that Bush din't too much focus on Iraq, he said that Bush didn't understand the threat of terror and dealt with it in a disastrous, counterprodcutive way. Bush's piss poor political judgement and lack of understanding is what the critique is about.

And that is not a smear campaign but a simple and objective critique based on what we know today. Bush's approach to terrorism made the problem worse, and didn't solve it.

:lol: @ Darkwolf

I love it that one quote from one guy 4 years ago, with no link or the rest of the comments to provide context, is apparantly enough to debunk mountains of evidence that the Bush administration had a major hard-on for Iraq, and therefore invalidates all criticism from the Democrats.

You're just so precious.

DR,

Re-read my post, especially the first part of it.

Now where does it state that the quote debunks anything? It says that it tears a little bit away from an arguement. It is what it is, don't put words in my mouth and try to make it more than that, and please take your patronizing You're just so precious. somewhere else. :rolleyes:

It is simply a statement made by a Senator from the Democratic party that shows that the entire US governmnet was suspicious of Iraq.

As far as it being 4 years ago, it is only 11 months prior to 9/11/01, and only 4 months before the Clinton administration turned over its final security report to the Bush administration, a report that has no mention of Al Queda in it. That makes it relevant

I love how the Bush administration is responsible for the actions of a terrorist organization that the Clinton administration was so concerned about that they discussed it every day, but forgot to mention it to the incoming Administration. Can you say complicity, because I can define what "is" means.

Ragusa,

You are mistaken as to the purpose of the 9/11 Commission. Its purpose is to see if anything could have reasonably been done to prevent 9/11, and supposedly to make sure we not repeat any mistakes we may have made.

See comments to DR above regarding the time frame of the comment from Bob Kerry.

Unfortunately after 8 years of cuts to our intelligence agencies (cuts that John Kerry thought were far too insufficient), Bush didn't have a whole lot to go on, as it takes a little bit more than 8 months to rebuild those agencies.

As a holdover from the previous administration, and in the position he was in, he likely was not privy to all of the discussions that the President had regarding terrorism, or all the planning that may are may not have occured, a fact that greatly deteriorates the value of his OPINION, because nothing he has presented has proven anything. Additionally, one of Clarke's primary points is (paraphrasing) "Bush was too obsessed with Iraq to see the issue clearly".

The 9/11 Committies assigned task has nothing to do with investigating what happened after 9/11. The fact that certain members of that committee can't stop using the committee to take shots at the policies of the Administration regarding Iraq proves that they are in fact using it as a platform from which to broadcast their "smear campaign".

I can see your point about things being worse since Iraq was liberated, at least for Germany and her allies that were against the war, since they lost billions in oil contracts. As for the US, not a single major terrorist attack against US interests outside of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2.5 years, and you have already read my arguments for the liberation of Iraq elsewhere, so I will not repeat them here.

Finally, it is not "partisan dope". It is belief that the Democrats will do anything, including sell this country out to any interest or expose it to any danger to get back in power. John Kerry is the worst of the candidates that were running for the Democratic nomination. At least Edwards (who would I would have given serious consideration to) has been consistent in his stances, and the rest didn't stand a chance against Bush. I know, Kerry is not supposed to be consistent, he is supposed to do what the majority wants (DR or Chandos “Politics 101” comment a while back), but that is wrong IMO. The US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. As such, our founding fathers believed that we should vote for people who would represent us to our best interests, something that cannot be counted on in a simple majority rules environment. I am not going to research it for you, but anyone who has studied Jefferson or Franklin's writings can confirm that both of these men believed a true democracy to be as repressive as a monarchy. This is why I am vehemently against J. Kerry, and anyone else who doesn’t have the consistency to stand for what they believe is right.

Bush has his own warts, but I have discovered that those are of little interest to the people who post here, so they are not discussed, and thus you do not get an opportunity to hear my frustrations with Mr. "spend us into prosperity, grow more government, provide more entitlements to those who don't want them, legalize everyone who entered this nation illegally, legislate morality, and ban free speech" Bush.

The Democrats are not campaigning on the issues that they can really get Bush on. Of course they can’t attack him for the things they can hurt him on, because if they were in power, they would do most of the things I knock Bush for, only to a greater degree. :sosad:

Well it is quite clear I am not as informed as many of the heavyweights in this ring...but here goes...

I watched some portion of the hearing with Condaleeza Rice on Thursday. I was not too impressed. I believe she used it as a platform for selling the ideology of her boss...and that is understandable given the political undertow of the hearings. I was also not impressed by the interviewing panel. I was annoyed at one man in particular. I wish I could remember his name. He was a Democratic senator with grey hair and appeared in his late fourties to mid fiftees. He would laugh and sneer at the National Security Advisor while she was speaking. It is completely unacceptable to address a woman of such standing in a manner so juvenile.

As Condaleeza herself said, by definition she has failed in her duties. However, she is still the woman charged with protecting us from future attacks. A woman entrusted with such a task deserves to be spoken to with respect.

I believe Clark had political motives for his book. He was a high ranking government employee with elected bosses. He disagreed with the policies and actions of his elected boss and then wrote it in book format. A perfectly acceptable thing to do in our society but lets not forget that it is of course inherently political.

I believe Clark heavily disagreed with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Without Iraq, I do not think this book would have been written. I agree with Clark on Iraq. To me Iraq seems like a mistake of American political hubris with which we will be enburdened for a long, long time.

Regardless, I do not feel like Condaleeza Rice or the rest of the Bush administration should be held responsible for 9/11 in the negligent sense. What they should be held accountable for is the crackhead-with-a-blank-check spending spree our government now adopts as fiscal policy. They should be held accountable for their inability to garner foreign support in the the means of dollars and troops that would have made the Iraq nation-building experiment a success. Having not won that foreign support, they should now be held responsible for their lack of humility in thinking we could accomplish this alone.

I hope the Democrats stop pushing this political "hot button" of 9/11 because it is in fact wired to nothing of substance. I hope they instead attack the current administation for their possibly less visible but farther reaching and much graver errors.

You are mistaken as to the purpose of the 9/11 Commission. Its purpose is to see if anything could have reasonably been done to prevent 9/11, and supposedly to make sure we not repeat any mistakes we may have made.:hmm: Huh? What has the purpose of the commission to do with if Clarke is right or wrong? :hmm:

I think Late Night Thinker hit on some important points here.Like him I felt the way they questioned Rice crossed the line.It seemed that suddenly the commision became very partison and determined to get her to admit that 9/11 was their fault.

If they had questioned her in a more adult manner,I would have alot more faith in what they are trying to do.For her part I thought she did her job well.She defended the president(which is her job)in an articulate and intellegent manner,even when under attack.She seems to me to be a formidable women.

I just dont think trying to pin blame is going to work here.To think the goverment can protect us from everything is just not realistic.

One day partison politics may be set aside in the interest of whats best for America,but that day seems a long way off.

Ragusa,

The commission isn't supposed to be about any one person. It's alleged purpose is to make discover what mistakes the US gov't might have made prior to 9/11, and what we can learn from the events leading up to 9/11, to prevent another attack.

I say alleged because it has turned into a witch-hunt. I won't even try to convince anyone as to who is at fault for that because it is too arbitrary. Each person will have to look at the actions of the commission members and judge for themselves.

The US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. As such, our founding fathers believed that we should vote for people who would represent us to our best interests, something that cannot be counted on in a simple majority rules environment. "The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.
Actually, we should set the record straight. As an example of this here in Texas we vote on changes to our Constitution directly as well as other important laws. And there are other places, such as CA, where the voters vote directly on the issues themselves - they are often referred to as Propostitions. A situation where voters vote directly on laws or changes to the laws that affect their lives, and I would say that that is a pretty good example of a democracy, or democratic government in action.

The one thing that the Founding Brothers did agree on (and anyone who has bothered to actually read their letters would discover that they disagreed on many issues) was that the People were sovereign. The government they crafted was based on this ideal.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. This is, of course, from the Declaration. Jefferson has laid out the ideal of the People's Sovereignty - not that of the government's as you seem to suggest. The government derives its power from the People not the reverse. "Organizing its powers in such form," does not exclude a democracy.

Here's more:

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
This is a direct quote from Jefferson from his letters. He qualifies his statement carefully, by saying "well-informed." Near the end of his life he was very much engaged in his pet project, which was the planning and building of the University of Virginia. He and many of the other Founders, including Washington, with his dreams of a National University, believed that the surivial of the new nation depended on a well-educated, well-informed electorate. In his Farewell Address, Washington asked Hamilton, (who actually drafted the document) to make this a strong point. Hamilton let Washington down a bit on this by tucking it into the middle of the address, and giving it only a passing emphasis.

I bring this into our discussion because it goes to the heart of the matter that concerned more than a few of the Founders. You are right that they believed that those with the right credintials and qualifications should govern for the People. But for the Founders this would mean those who are well-educated and informed. Crucial to this are two things: a free press and a large system of education with access for a large number of Americans, which we now have, probably beyond the dreams of the Founders.

What is ironic is that both are blasted by the current "Republican" party. According to them we now know that teachers in public schools are "terrorists" and that the Press is wholly run by "Liberals." Here's another Jefferson quote:

"our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." Washington read newpapers constantly, every one he could get his hands on. And that despite knowing that they were at times "unreliable." Jefferson loved books: "I cannot live without books," he wrote to Adams in 1815. And he spent nearly a life's fortune on them. But on just about most other matters they did not agree on much. In fact, at the end of his life Washington refused any correspondence with Jefferson at all. One should be a bit careful when painting the "Founding Fathers" with a broad brush, as if there was some whole-hearted agreement among all the players involved in the crafting of our government.

But Jefferson and John Adams had a running argument near the end of their lives. And for those of you who don't know this, they both passed away on the same day: The Fourth of July, 1826, which was the Fiftieth Anniversary of the signing. And within just a few hours of each other. Nothing could have been more fitting for the two old founding patriots, especially after regaining their close friendship.

But back to the argument. Jefferson had always been concerned that Adams was a closet elitist, and that Adams would have preferred to see an American version of British aristocracy governing America. This suspected notion horrified Jefferson. The charge against Adams was unfair, but it showed how badly Jefferson fretted over the notion that aristocracy would rear its ugly head in the American governing process. But I think in Adams' mind there was a sort of elite (not born or titled aristocracy) that were educated and through their own efforts a natural class of men who should govern. But in the end Jefferson offers this about their differences on the issues that divided them:

I have thus stated my opinion on a point on which we differ, not with a view to controversy, for we are both too old to change opinions which are the result of a long life of inquiry and reflection; but on the suggestion of a former letter of yours, that we ought not to die before we have explained ourselves to each other. We acted in perfect harmony thro' a long and perilous contest for our liberty and independance. A constitution has been acquired which, tho neither of us think perfect, yet both consider as competent to render our fellow-citizens the happiest and the securest on whom the sun has ever shone. If we do not think exactly alike as to it's imperfections, it matters little to our country which, after devoting to it long lives of disinterested labor, we have delivered over to our successors in life, who will be able to take care of it, and of themselves.
They often did not agree, but Jefferson agrees that they can disagree and both still love their country. A valuable lesson from Thomas Jefferson.

Here's a few more quotes on Jefferson and majority rule:

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127 Here's one more from our Thomas Jefferson 101:

"The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:420
What we see here in the mind of Jefferson is that the majorty rules, but with certain qualifying conditions. The rights of the individual are always of equal importance to Jefferson.

[ April 10, 2004, 08:22: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

While this is very interesting, it should have been put in a new thread because it doesn't have a lot to do with the topic...

It appears as though both the Democratic and Republican members of the 9/11 Commision are now stating that the search for culpability is leading away from the Administration and toward a fundamental breakdown in communication and cooperation between the CIA and the FBI.

As far as Bush goes, this will probably become a non-issue. A greater issue, as far as his re-election is concerned, is whether it is perceived by the American people that he lied to bring on the attack on Iraq

Entertainingly, the fishing expedition that is the 9/11 Commission (come on, partisan hacks like Jamie Gorelick and Jim Edgar on an objective investigation?) has hit a snag.

The much-lamented "wall" between the FBI and CIA -- a wall which was just explained to me in detail by one of the CIA guys who writes the PDB -- was the handiwork of... (wait for it)... Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.

Attorney General John Ashcroft showed up with the memo in which Gorelick codified the wall. Now whom are we going to blame?

Yeah, the 9/11 Commission does have to determine whether or not Dick Clarke is lying -- because Clarke is saying (well, he's saying now, in direct contradiction to what he said a couple of years ago) that Bush didn't do anything about the war on terror. That's exactly the sort of issue that the 9/11 Commission is supposed to be looking into.

The end game, especially now that a smoking gun has been found in the possession of the Clinton Administration, will be a standard DC whitewashing.

And Chandos, you've got it largely right on Jefferson, but your swipe at Republicans are incorrect. While many conservatives, including myself, think that education is best handled by private schools and/or homeschooling, the Bush Administration has jacked up spending on education by a ridiculous amount. And, while the majority of the mainstream press outside of talk radio and Fox News is indeed liberal, that has nothing to do with a free press.

Supposedly now Jamie Gorelick has refused to step down from her position from the committee.

HMMMM. Maybe one of the attorneys on the board can give us a description of "conflict of interest", or even "the appearance of conflict of interest", and the proper responses to such events. I am betting it will involve Jamie's stepping down from the committee.

If this committee were really about preventing future attacks, it would have Jamie take the oath and tell us why she wrote her memo. I am betting that she had a valid reason that would totally exonerate her, but that it might have far reaching political ramifications.

So in the meantime, let the witch hunt continue. :rolleyes:

Uh, uh. There we are again. The Dem bias. When I get to hear that tale once more I'll get spots. How about this:

The Democrat A sais Bush made a mistake. A Republican B sais A said so because it is in A's interest to claim Bush made mistakes (like: isn't he a political opponent?/ or as for Clarke: didn't he write a book he wants to see sold? *).
By that B implies that A is wrong when he said Bush made a mistake. Sounds familiar?

But then, did B in any way counter A's point? No.

That's a classical fallacy, a circumstantial ad hominem attack - Clarke got that aplenty. But why seems no one to bother dealing with his points? Too difficult?

When a Democrat, and Clarke isn't even one, even in an election year, sais Bush has made a mistake, that may well be true. Even Bush himself is confident to have made some.

* it also works that way: B could claim that A has in the past repeatedly criticised Bush, suggesting he has a certain bias against him anyway, implying his critique isn't rational.
Just as silly, but then, this sh*t works, if you don't look too close. It's a classical manipulation technique.

[ April 16, 2004, 18:25: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

The fact of the matter is, people like Darkwolf will strain themselves to find any reason whatsoever to put this commision, or anyone critical of the Bush administration, in a bad light because it gives them a reason to dismiss them as liars. They don't care about the search for truth. They'd rather spend their time discrediting the people who are coming forward rather than disprove the things they are actually saying.

As I pointed out in a previous post to Darkwolf on the first page (which apparantly he didn't read), making unfounded and asenine statements like "Clarke is a willing tool of the DNC," statements that are baseless and counterproductive, all they're doing is giving themselves an excuse to keep believing what they want to believe. In this case, that the terrorist threat against us is all somehow the fault of liberals, that liberals are trying to blame everything on the conservatives, and that the Democrats will do anything to make Bush look bad, because they're all hellbent on power and greed. God forbid they actually care about our country doing the right thing. Hint: it's not what we're doing now.

It looks like tempers are starting to flair in this thread.

Tact, diplomacy, and confining of points to the post instead of the poster, are always desirable qualities for posts in the AoDA.

This caution cuts both ways for any future posts of course.

You are wrong DR. Start a thread about the stupid drug plan that Bush pushed through and see how fast I pile on him. Start a thread on how idiotic it is to throw good money after bad in the "none left behind" program and watch me tear Bush to shreds. Start a thread on the "war on illegal drugs" and see how little support I give Bush. Start a thread on the FCC and how Powell is Bush's little ***** and I will jump right in the fray.

The fact is, I believe in the war and I don't believe that Bush had nearly the opportunities that Clinton had to take care of Osama. I believe that the 9/11 commission is more about the next election and political face time than it is about protecting people of this nation (Democrats and Republicans are just as guilty in this). I believe that Kerry is a slave to the polls, and that he will be far worse for this nation than Bush. You disagree with all of those, so you attack me personally.

Feel free to keep it up if it makes you feel better. :rolleyes:

Apparantly a little clarification and self-defense is in order, and then I promise I won't stray from the topic again, and will henceforth watch my wording so that my attacks are directed exclusively at arguements. I also don't think my "attack" was a personal one, which I'll explain as well.

Comments from Darkwolf thoughout this thread include:
this [commission] has no traction except with those who already hate Bush so much that they wouldn't believe it if Clarke came out and admitted that he has a personal axe to grind. Finally he contradicts himself more than John Kerry...a tremendous feat to say the least.

Creditability? Slim to none, and Slim just left town. The last of Clarke's credibility is shot (if he ever had any). Clarke is a willing tool of the DNC. Time to tear away a little of the "Bush was too focused on Iraq" crap that the Democrats are running.
In this thread, Darkwolf, you have taken every opportunity to chip away at not only Clarke's credibility, but any of the Democratic members of the commission. And Shralp, as well, said above:
the fishing expedition that is the 9/11 Commission (come on, partisan hacks like Jamie Gorelick and Jim Edgar on an objective investigation?) Come on, guys - you really think you're being fair and objective? I see your criticisms of the commission as completely one sided, and IMO it is a very fair assertion, for a number of reasons.

You question the panel's objectivity and claim the Democratic members of the commission are "witch-hunting," yet you never say anything about how the administration has fought the commission tooth and nail, and originally wanted warmonger Henry Kissinger to head it. You rail Clarke for being a partisan hack who's counter-terrorism experience you think is greatly exaggerated, yet you have no problem with Condoleeza Rice, an expert primarily on a Cold War that doesn't exist anymore, as a perfectly competant NSA. You haven't said a word about the fact that when the commission wants a document declassified that could be potentially damaging to the administration, the White House drags their feet and whines about the diffucult process involved, yet John Ashcroft practically has declassified documents falling out of his pockets when it comes time to attack somebody (like Gorelick).

Whenever some new revelation comes to light, you chime in with "See? The commission is a sham..." without seeming to care what the other side of the coin is. Like the fact that if the commission felt Gorelick's memo actually did anything other than codify what was already standard practice (which is true) and compromised her position on the panel (which it doesn't), they could have her removed. But they won't. Which I'm sure you'll blame on the bitter partisan Democrats. If you're so objective in this case, let's hear you rail about Ashcroft trying to screw Gorelick over a memo written in 1995 outlining a policy which his own Justice Department ratified in the summer of 2001.

Throughout this thread, you haven't provided a single arguement to debunk either Clarke's or anyone else's account of the actual events that took place and evidence that has been presented. More importantly, neither has the White House, who should have ample documentation to disprove Clarke's allegations if they were bogus. Instead, you and others find any little snipet you can that casts doubt on Clarke's motives, painting him in a bad light, and brushing his testimony and insight off with a clear conscience. As I said earlier, all you've been doing is discrediting the messengers, when the message is what's important. So when I say "people like Darkwolf," I lump you into that category, quite fairly, because you're providing exactly the same line of attack as the GOP.

Now, why this isn't an attack on Darkwolf only, and very relevent to the discussion at hand:

What you and others, not only in this thread but everywhere, seem to be (I dare say intentionally) overlooking is that WHY Clarke is doing what he's doing doesn't matter. If he's right, we as a nation need to know about it. The more people scream "Partisan hack witch hunt!" the more it will cheapen the findings of the commission. Does this commission have political ramifications? Of course. Should it be going on during the election year? When a president is running his campaign almost entirely on the assertion that he can handle national defense and terrorism better than anybody else, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, you betcha.

Those who are so critical of the commission are just revealing their transparancy. If Bush is so tough on terrorism, the findings of the commission will show it, make the Democrats (especially Clinton) look weak, and forever solidify the Republicans as the keepers of safety and justice. But if he's the incompetant fraud that I think he is, it'll show that too. The panic attack from the Bushies the last 4 weeks says to me it's the latter.

Sorry if this response came off sounding like a personal attack, as apparantly the last one did. But I'm not attacking Darkwolf the person, I'm criticizing your line of arguement and reasoning which is, IMO, intellectually dishonest and inflamatory. If I'd said "Darkwolf and all the other escaped Nazi's think that...," then that would be a personal attack. ;)

Oh, and by the way...
You're just so precious. ...should have included a smiley. Tongue in cheak. My bad.

Actually, I should point out the Jim Edgar is a Republican political hack. The structure of the commission was not done as something that will come up with answers, or they would have put professional investigators on it. Instead, the members are partisan hacks on both sides, who desire only to score political points. You misread my post, apparently, as I did not say that the witch hunt was solely Democratic.

Rabbit: You're putting words into my mouth re: Clarke. Condoleeza Rice is not part of the 9/11 Commission. I'm unaware of any declassification requests that have gone unanswered by the White House. Gorelick's memo clearly stated that separation should now go "beyond the law." Screaming (or typing calmly based on the fact, if you want to stop being emotional about it) "partisan hack witch hunt" is very helpful if what you're talking about is, in fact, a partisan hack witch hunt. If I thought that the 9/11 Commission was going to do something useful, I'd support it. As it is, I primarily ignore it.

Questions of Clarke's credibility are not ad hominem attacks, or at least not irrelevant ones. He has in many instances stated things that are in direct contradiction to statements by Condoleeza Rice, President Bush, VP Cheney, and others with no corroborating evidence either way. When it comes down to that, we have to assess each person's character to see whom to trust. Since Clarke has been demonstrated to contradict himself, has monetary motives, is a Democrat (he never voted for a Republican for president), etc., it seems reasonable to doubt him.

is a Democrat (he never voted for a Republican for president), etc Evidently Reagan switched political parties without anyone noticing.

Well, he was a Democrat when he was Governor of California...

Just kidding Aldeth, I couldn't resist! :o ;) :p

Of course Clarke voted for Reagan, look who ran against him. Carter and Mondale :sleep: Then the democrats followed up with Dukakis? Though the parallel for the Republicans is just about as bad: Bush 41, Dole, and Bush 43. Wow, now that I think about it, Clinton was a breath of fresh air.

We HAVE to get some more people with a little personality into politics! :coffee:

Sorry I am :yot: