Democrats & Liberals: Archives

WASHINGTON, March 22, 2004 — White House officials reacted with anger today to charges by President Bush’s former top counter-terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, that the president has badly bungled the war on terrorism.

Clarke, who blasted the Bush administration in a 60 Minutes interview Sunday, “wasn’t in the loop,” Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview Monday with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

My question for the Bush Administration is: if your top counter-terrorism advisor isn’t “in the loop”, what kind of anti-terror strategy is that?

Maybe this is an indication of campaign fatigue already but I don’t even care to answer these insane charges.

I only a heard parts of Dick Clarke’s ‘American Grand Stand’ and it didn’t seem that explosive to me.

It sounds like the Bush administration continued the basic formula of the Clinton Administration. What you have now is alot of partisan accusations trying to make this into treason.

Frankly, it’s making me a little sick of democrats. This 9/11 commission has been planned to be used for partisan political purposes by democrats for some time.

Dick Clarke is a hold over from the last administration, who got phased out, and seems miffed about it. He also seems pretty cocky about just how important he was supposed to be.

Eventually I plan on finding the transcripts to this to read everything that was said.

It doesn’t hardly seem like the smoking gun you liberals were looking for though. I mean, this story has more sex in it. A least it would be more damning?

Bert:

I think we are both Republicans and Democrats watching one of the most deplorable acts in American history. I think BOTH sides are bluntly politicizing without a shred of remorse 9/11 and the war on terrorism.

As for Mr. Clark. Follow the money. His political contributions have all been democratic. In addition the release date of the book was time for drama. A true patriot in a time of war would have waited until the War was over to write such a book. If he has sold his soul for the almighty dollar in a time of war, then I hope he is convicted of purgery and rots in jail.

On the Republican side the “humor” of this last week, and the defensiveness where the whole world can see that the movive for each word is not to help win the war but to get reelected is terrible.

Ralph Nader is a joke.

If EVER there was a time in American History for a third person outside of the political parties to step in to the election it is now.

John McCain just might be the man.

I don’t think I have ever been more angry with our national leaders of BOTH parties than right now. I think it is a time for Democracts and Replicans of good will to stand together and say that in our country’s dark hour we demand better leadership, and better higher standards of conduct.

Craig

Eric and Craig,

I’m reminded of one of the rights afforded someone accused of a crime - the right to confront their accuser.

I remember a remark by a shrink on TV during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings. He said a defendent who is truly falsely accused, is much more likely to be in a courtroom to hear his accusers testimony.

Clarence Thomas choose not to.

I cannot believe that I need to correct two accusations you’ve both made. First, the White House had Clarke’s book for nearly a year for security clearance and therefore could’ve disposed of this problem back when Bush had a 65% approval rating.

Yes, Clarke gave money to the Dems. He also voted for Bush in 2000, Bush Sr. and Reagan. He is a registered Republican.

If you have any actual proof the Dems are exploiting 9/11, please supply the evidence. The folder for the Republicans is already pretty thick.

Just as O’Reilly and Coulter had an golden opportunity to refute Al Franken’s claims in ‘Lying Liar…’, they passed on answering ‘…insane charges’.

With all due respect gentlemen, If you had better evidence aganist Mr. Clarke, I doubt you would be lumping both parties into the evildoers catagory.

Yes, us Democrats are flooding cyberspace in righteous indignation, while Republicans have their heads deep in the sand.

Frankly, it’s making me a little sick of democrats. This 9/11 commission has been planned to be used for partisan political purposes by democrats for some time.

A nice counterpoint to 9/11 being used for partisan political purposes by Republicans, wouldn’t you say?

Dick Clarke is a hold over from the last administration, who got phased out, and seems miffed about it. He also seems pretty cocky about just how important he was supposed to be.

Wait a second. The guy served under Reagan and Bush Sr., too. He’s hardly some Clinton appointee whom the Republicans overlooked when the took office.

Head of counter-terrorism right after 9/11 is a fairly important position, too.

As for Mr. Clark. Follow the money. His political contributions have all been democratic.

The only site I can find saying this is Insight, which says he gave to two Democrats whom he probably knew personally (Insight refers to them as “his friends”). Hardly damning, especially considering his status as a registered Republican during that time.

John McCain just might be the man.

God, I wish he would, but it’ll never happen. He’s even the co-chair of the Bush campaign in Arizona. I’d vote for him in an instant, though.

Bert:

Follow the money. Who benefits from Clark’s remarks. Well Clark does of course. He makes the money for the book. He is making MONEY off of 9/11. Lots and Lots of MONEY. IF making Lots and Lots of MONEY off of 9/11 isn’t exploitation what is????

Hmmmmm, should making lots and lots of money off a national tragedy be a reasonable reason to question someones motives???

I think as a beginning point that is certainly a reasonable basis for thinking people to view Clark with a skeptical eye.

Craig

A true patriot in a time of war would have waited until the War was over to write such a book. If he has sold his soul for the almighty dollar in a time of war, then I hope he is convicted of purgery and rots in jail.

Considering that the war on terror is likely to last for many years, and that his accusations involve an administration which he clearly feels should not remain in power past this election, isn’t this a natural time for him to publish a book airing those accusations? Asking him to wait until the war is over, and the american people no longer have the ability to act on his accusations by electing a different administration, seems to me like an illogical request. If he did wait until the war on terror was finally over to publish his book, then all that would come of it would be scandal and money, but by publishing it now it has the chance to influence the decision the voting public makes in the fall. Thus, the timing should show that his motivation is most likely not merely to make money, but to cause change in the policies he takes issue with.

Craig,
Somehow I doubt you would agree that the central motive of Clarke writing this book, was to bring to light the mis-steps of our government, in total (from Reagan to Bush II), in dealing with the Al Qeada threat. Then, correcting and marshalling all our nation’s effort, to effectively combat it from this day forward.

Richard Clarke has been a civil servant all his life, the last two decades at the service of 3 Presidents. He could have made millions moving to the private sector, which makes the royalities from this book mere pittance.

I think your greed angle is disengenious and petty. Clarke was as important a figure before and after 9/11, as Giuliani and Bernard Kerik. No doubt, they will include 9/11 in their books. Is that exploitation and greed?

Do you think 9/11 footage in a campaign TV ad is exploitation?

A true patriot in a time of war would have waited until the War was over to write such a book.

It’s unfortunate that the Republicans have managed to rewrite the definition of patriotism to mean “no dissent.”

I don’t think the arguments made against Clarke have been convincing - largely because other people have come forward from within the Administration saying exactly the same thing, and they have been attacked in almost exactly the same way. The Administration has used all of its ammo already smearing others.

As Bert posted, the substance of Clarke’s statements have not been adequately addressed. Clarke currently holds the upper hand in the argument and refutation process, as we discussed in the “Presidential Obsession” and “Unleash the Hounds” threads. Let’s talk about the issues he’s raised, and not engage in character attacks.

As for those of you who are disgusted with the events that have occured surrounding Clarke’s statements, I’d say that you should listen to the whole of the story first-hand. The members of the 9/11 commission have been remarkably even handed with thier tough questions. Bob Kerrey in particular has torn up Democrats just as willingly as Republicans. And Clarke’s statements themselves, in fact, critisize the Clinton Administration as well as Bush. If Rice would publicly testify, she’d at least have a chance of putting some of these issues to rest.

Clarke should not be blamed for coming out and saying things that he obviously feels strongly about. If more people in government came out as whistle-blowers, we’d have a more honest, transparent system. Bush is simply wants acolytes than advisors.

That last sentence should have been: “Bush simply wants acolytes rather than advisors.”

What are Clarke’s accusations precisely? I took the liberty, or rather the duty, to look for a transcript. What I found on the 911 commission website is a written statement. What follows are direct quotes from that document.

The Bush Administration saw terrorism policy as important but not urgent, prior to 9-11. The difficulty in obtaining the first Cabinet level (Principals) policy meeting on terrorism and the limited Principals’ involvement sent unfortunate signals to the bureaucracy about the Administration’s attitude toward the al Qida threat.

Important but not urgent. Probably true.

The US response to al Qida following 9-11 has been partially effective. Unfortunately, the US did not act sufficiently quickly to insert US forces to capture or kill the al Qida leadership in Afghanistan. Nor did we employ sufficient US and Allied forces to stabilize that country. In the ensuing 30 months, al Qida has morphed into a decentralized network, with its national and regional affiliates operating effectively and independently. There have been more major al Qida related attacks globally in the 30 months since 9-11 than there were in the 30 months preceding it. Hostility toward the US in the Islamic world has increased since 9-11, largely as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Thus, new terrorist cells are likely being created, unknown to US intelligence.

To address the continuing threat from radical Islamic terrorism, the US and its allies must become increasingly focused and effective in countering the ideology that motivates that terrorism. -Dick Clarke

Truly scathing? If you watched any newscast you would have gotten the idea that Clarke was saying that Bush was actually responsible for 9/11. The testimony does not bear this out. Clarke’s serious gripe is with what happened after 9/11. That and the fact that he did not get the job as second in command at Homeland Security. Do you think if he had been given that job he would have written this book?

Albright’s and Sandy Berger’s testimony sounded reasonable. Although there seemed to me to be alot of CYA. Albright in particular seems to look back in fondness at all of the appointing, convening, assessing, recognizing, realizing, top prioritizing, intensifying, and exploring alternatives to ‘actionable intelligence’.

I think that most of the really damning testimony, in light the attempt to lay the blame of 911 on Bush, is how inadequate the eight years of fighting terrorism as a ‘top priority’ was under Clinton.

Because of the growing economic damage to Sudan due to its support of terrorism, bin Ladin offered to move to Afghanistan. Sudan at no time detained him, nor was there ever a credible offer by Sudan to arrest and render him. -Dick Clarke

Something contradicted by Clinton’s own words about this. (Sean Hannity has the tape.)

Despite our inability to locate Usama bin Ladin in one place long enough to launch an attack, I urged that we engage in a bombing campaign of al Qida facilities in Afghanistan. That option was deferred by the Principals Committee. -Dick Clarke

Yes but cruise missiles were eventually used… after yet another terrorist attack, the embassy bombings.

In the 1996-1999 timeframe, they regularly responded to me and to the National Security Advisor that there were no known al Qida operatives or activities in the US. On my trips to FBI field offices, I found that al Qida was not a priority… -Dick Clarke

I don’t see a smoking gun here…

If you have any actual proof the Dems are exploiting 9/11, please supply the evidence. The folder for the Republicans is already pretty thick.

Um, the Rockefeller memo?

Every Democrat from Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean has reiterated this same idea that Bush failed to prevent 911. Some are soliciting impeachment on this issue.

The families outraged about Bush’s 9/11 ‘attack ads’, were in fact democrats from a far left anti-war 503c called September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows. Which ironically while calling for Bush to never use 9/11 in his campaign ads is in effect campagning against him as, “September Eleventh Families”. An organization which received liberal trust fund money indirectly from Mrs. John F. Kerry.

Um, the entire Dick Clarke ‘Grand stand’ was in fact a staged publicity event at a non-partisan congressional hearing which was supposed to be finding facts, not smearing a President. For some, political expediency has no bounds. For others there is diabolocal conspiracy everywhere.

On the evening of December 6, 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the president of the United States, received a message intercepted by the U.S. Navy. Sent from Tokyo to the Japanese embassy in Washington, the message was encrypted in the top-level Japanese “purple code.” But that was no problem. The Americans had cracked the code long before that. It was imperative that the president see the message right away because it revealed that the Japanese, under the heavy pressure of Western economic sanctions, were terminating relations with the United States. Roosevelt read the thirteen-part transmission, looked up and announced, “This means war.” He then did a very strange thing for a president in his situation.

NOTHING. -Pearl Harbor Conspiracy page

Bert:

In order to be able to consider Clarke truly patriotic, and therefore not looking for the money nor the political impact, you would have to wonder why he chose the writing of a book to express his urgent opinion.

There is little record of him making accusations about the Bush admin prior to his celebrated book, which by the way will make him a rich man. He waited for almost 2 years before his urgent opinion is now heard, coincidentally at a time when it would sell the most books.

His testimony refutes some of what his own book alleges. In fact, when asked if any of his own policies would have prevented 911, Clarke meekly answered, “No.” Yet his promotional interviews seem to claim otherwise.

Bert, we should not overlook the useful segments of Clarke’s book. But neither should we condemn an administration that essentially followed in the footsteps of a previous administration.

Eric, let me start with Roosevelt. The severing of diplomatic relations is a big sign of impending hostilities. Pearl Harbor was simply the surprising start to those aforementioned hostilities.

As for September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows, I believe a number of the women who showed up in the media to protest were not of that group, especially not the ones lumped in there by Rush. Those women he mentioned had nothing to do with it. Anyway, I do believe the group mentioned above denied that it was funded by the tides organization. even if it was, the connection allegede between Heinz’s group is so tenuous, so “six degrees of separation” as to imply no real control or credible association. I think I covered this a while back.

As for the Rockefeller memo, it’s nice to see Republicans enjoying the use of their ill gotten goods. They do know that it’s illegal to steal such documents, don’t they? Or did that third-rate burglary thirty years ago fail to teach the party the need lessons about staying on this side of the law?

Anyways, your people have ejected triple amputees from office with commercials portraying them as comrades of the the terrorists with no actual evidence. Don’t we get to respond when the facts point the finger of blame in the other direction?

You bring up Clarke’s testimony about the culture of resistance against keying law enforcement towards counterterrorism, but you neglect to tie that back to his previous testimony. Pre-9/11, Clinton’s Justice and Defense departments might have had cultural problems with shifting towards counterterrorism, but in Bush’s White House, Clarke said the problem went all the way to the top.

That’s the key. It’s one thing to try and change an entrenched bureaucracy when the president is behind you all the way, and understands the problem. It’s quite another thing when the president and his closest advisors are the ones you have to debate to get the changes made.

The problem is, the Neoconservatives have all decided what the real threats are. They know, in their hearts, that everybody else is simply not getting it. They will lower standards, cherry-pick, and even outright lie to maintain their vsion of what is good for the country.

In the meantime, the real threats gather, independent of Neo-Con rhetoric. Threats like terrorism. The Neoconservatives still drag their feet on giving up on their old ideas of what the foreign policy issues are. Iraq was the test of their methods, their beliefs, and it’s a test the group failed. They were altogether too naive about who to trust, about how their opponents would react, and about just what supplies and manpower they would need. In trying to prove their theories through intelligence, instead of test those threories through it, they left themselves open to the dangerous bad habit of interpreting the evidence to fit one’s assumptions.

That is why Iraq is so important. It was a elective war people were lead into unsure of the true reasons for it, a war which has proved deadlier and more problematic than predicted, and a war which has lost two of its three most important supports: Evidence of terrorist connections, and evidence of the WMDs that those terrorists were supposed to recieve.

Even if the removal of Saddam, and the creation of a democracy are good things, they have not served the purpose of making Americans safer. It’s wonderful that we did so much selflessly for those people, but we didn’t get into this war for charitable reasons. We got into this because Bush did his damnedest to convince this was part of the war on terror. A war on the kind of people that really didn’t show up. We didn’t fight any Al Quaeda invading Iraq. We stumbled on no training camps, no loci of terrorist support. If Saddam Hussein was not supporting or tolerating terrorists in his border, then as far as American security is concerned, this war was for nothing. It’s doubly for nothing if the threat of WMDs was a figment of our imagination.

When this all started, we thought we were going to go in there, defeat terrorist, disarm a dictator, and free a people from a tyrant. If we had gotten two out of the three things done, many of us democrats would have been happy. But we only got one, and even now, we are still struggling to make that one happen.

If what Clarke says is true, and there is much in the way of evidence to corroborate what he says, then we are in this position now by the stubborn, heedless efforts of this administration to make this war happen, and not simply because we were surprised over a bit of bad intelligence.

If nothing else, that is why I don’t want this president to serve another four years. He may be forceful, courageous, and bold, but he is utterly incompetent. And as much as one might like some person, you don’t keep him in a job they’re not qualified to handle.

Oh, by the way, the reason Clarke used such flattering language in his resignation is simple: he wanted it accepted. If he had been more forceful, more blunte, more honest even, Bush may have just decided to fire him instead. I wonder what you would have said about Clarke’s testimony in that case.

Bert:

Yes I do think it was exploitive. Just picture me as totally cynical of this whole election from both sides and you will guess correctly most of the time of my mindset.

I believe that BOTH parties are in a desperate fight to get or keep power. I think BOTH are using whatever backdrop they can to win this election.

Kerry’s service in Vietnam was three months or so. Some how I am to believe that three months in Vietnam makes Kerry qualified to be commander and chief?? Isn’t that “exploitation” to show vietnam films where 50,000, yes 50,000 men died in order to be elected?

If my first basic point is that both sides are exploiting shamelessly whatever they can in order to get elected, then my second is that what we need is a real debate over the future of this country. 9/11 changed the world for ever. It is only time until an extremist group goes nuclear. THEEEEEEEEE question is how do we as a democracy and world (UN) function in a world where terrorists can obtain the technology to wipe out hundreds of thousands of citizens on a single day? Democracy itself is at risk. Do we destroy democracy to save it? (Patriot act?) How do we function as a world body? Within the UN that is far better at voting for resolutions than enforcing them? Or to we trust in our own intelligence that is flawed?? Those are real questions about the future of civilization that are being debated. Right now we (we being thoughtful people of differing view points) are loosing because our leaders are locked into constant cheapshoting the other side in a hope that they will get elected/reelected.

It all seems like rearranging the furniture on the Titanic to me.

Some national leader needs to call us to higher ground. I really don’t care if they are an independent, republican or democrat.

Craig

> If you watched any newscast you would have
> gotten the idea that Clarke was saying that
> Bush was actually responsible for 9/11. The
> testimony does not bear this out.

You’re absolutley right about the latter part: Clarke did not suggest that Bush was responsible for 9/11.

The first part of your statement (the false impression made by the media) is not the result of the media misinterpreting Clarke’s testimony. It’s the result of the White House’s paranoid over-reaction to the testimony.

Clarke has repeatedly indicted the Clinton administration almost (but not quite) as much as the Bush administration.

It’s interesting that the Clinton administration hasn’t pulled out the big guns to defend itself for it’s actions and inactions. It is, essentially, accepting responsibility for wha it did and did not do.

The Bush administration, in contrast, is freaking out. They are, of course, not mad about some non-existent allegation that Bush could have prevented 9/11. They are freaking out at the very suggestion that they might have been less committed to terrorism than the Clinton administration. This is such a deep insult to them that they feel compelled to react with counter-attacks, calculated leaks, and sleazy dodging - rather than with openness and contrition. Even Bill Frist condemned Clarke for apologizing!

I must admit, it’s extremely encouraging to me to see Karl Rove and the GOP pull off such a string of collossal PR blunders. Looks like they’re not infallable after all. I hope he keeps it up.

-Cf

The families outraged about Bush’s 9/11 ‘attack ads’, were in fact democrats from a far left anti-war 503c called September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows. Which ironically while calling for Bush to never use 9/11 in his campaign ads is in effect campagning against him as, “September Eleventh Families”. An organization which received liberal trust fund money indirectly from Mrs. John F. Kerry.

Um, excuse me? Are the families of people killed in 9/11 only allowed to criticize Bush if they’re Republicans?

I keep hearing this supposedly damning statement, and my response remains “so… your counterpoint to ‘some 9/11 families are offended’ is ‘well, they don’t count!’?”

Is George Bush really to blame for 9-11? If so, should the Patriot Act have been enacted earlier?

Did George Bush really invade Iraq instead of Afghanistan after 9-11? (He must have, I guess, because he gave “intimidating looks” to Clarke and Condi gave “blank stares” if you said the words Al Qaida).

After all the wrangling over minutiae, this is ALL that this debate boils down to, and after seeing Democrats insist on obscuring the issue with all sorts of sophistry and twisted logic—all the while insisting that Clarke is being “slimed” and “attacked” by any attempt to question his motives for actually sliming and attacking the president—I’m in the mood for a good dose of political revenge. Clarke is a poor target for this—he’s really nobody, despite Democratic attempts to elevate him in one week to some kind of “key figure,” a virtual Patton in “the war against terror” (which the Democrats have shown time and again they have no appetite for to begin with). No, Kerry and his surrogates are the ones who need to feel the consequences for poisoning the political debate in this country. How about a nice conversation now about his known contacts with Weatherman style anti-American revolutionary organizations , his presence at meetings on the proposed assasination of US Senators? Kerry obviously wants to drag this country through the political gutter, so let’s show him what that’s like if he wants it so badly.

And Bush and his people just need to let Clarke fade away at this point. There’s enough doubt about both his motivations (to turn a profit and shift blame from himself) that there’s little to be gained from further he-said she-said wrangling with the guy.

In talking with a great many friends on both sides of the political spectrum, I think I can safely say that one thing the general public has NO appetitite for is pointing fingers over 9-11. All Clarke’s conflicted testimony, disputed timelines, and wounded ego could ever amount to is just that—blaming George Bush for 9-11.

There’s so much misdirection going on here, that it’s difficult to even know where to begin. I continue to think that this debate between Clarke and his opponents is incomplete. I have seen Clarke’s response to the Administration’s attacks, but that’s where the conversation has ended. There needs to be further reponse from the Administration if they want to appear to have “won”; there needs to be a “step 4”, as I described here.

Martin responded eloquently, but disingenuously, claiming that no response was neccessary since the questions were unfair. Kathryn’s comment followed, and answered that point effectively. I’d like to repost them here so that the discussion can continue. I’d love a response.

Kathryn Wrote:
Martin-

Gaelen, imagine a courtroom where the prosecuting attorney got to cross examine himself pretending to be you, that you were asked to respond to the cut and paste bits and fragements of evidence that he’d already selected and skewed to prove his point? That’s really the game you’re proposing here.

Your analogy is a bit off there. Allow me to illustrate….

STEP 1) Clarke makes statements about Bush

STEP 2) Admin. disagrees with Clarke by “cut[ting] and past[ing] bits and fragements of evidence that [they’d] already selected and skewed to prove [their] point.”

STEP 3) Clarke disagrees with Admin. by “cut[ting] and past[ing] bits and fragements of evidence that he’d already selected and skewed to prove his point.”

Gaelen has asked you to create the following:

STEP 4) Martin disagrees with Clarke by “cut[ting] and past[ing] bits and fragements of evidence that he’d already selected and skewed to prove his point.”

You have claimed that Step 4 is impossible, however, the existence of Steps 2 and 3 prove the possibility of Step 4. You seem to agree that, at least, step 2 was conducted well, hence you should have no difficulty in creating Step 4. I think many of us would be interested to see this Step 4.

Note: This challenge is specific, but not exlusive, to Martin. Replace the word “Martin” with your own name in Step 4 and have at it!

It’s one thing to try and change an entrenched bureaucracy when the president is behind you all the way, and understands the problem. It’s quite another thing when the president and his closest advisors are the ones you have to debate to get the changes made.

Stephen, perhaps if we factor in a highly contentious election which complicated and shortened the usual trasition, with the fact that once that the Bush Administration got into office there were going to be reviews and changes made in policy and personel, which happens in every term, especially when a new party takes over, that it is not surprising that attention and urgency was lacking in preventing 9/11. It’s easy to say in retrospect that we failed, but there are limits to what you can prevent as well.

Clarke’s real animus against Bush, I think, has nothing to do with preventing 9/11 but with the policy in Iraq.

That is why Iraq is so important. It was a elective war people were lead into unsure of the true reasons for it, a war which has proved deadlier and more problematic than predicted, and a war which has lost two of its three most important supports: Evidence of terrorist connections, and evidence of the WMDs that those terrorists were supposed to recieve.

I might agree that the Bush administration made a mistake framing the reasons to go to war in not also highlighting the liberation aspect. I would have been more outgoing in promoting outright liberation. I certainly think that it made a mistake in going to the UN to authorize war. I think that they were constrained by exactly the politics you are suggesting that they ignored. They assumed the UN and the world would be interested in doing what it says. The UN decries dictatorship and upholds human rights, but apparently committment to those ideals are rather shallow. Billion of dollars might do that I guess.

When this all started, we thought we were going to go in there, defeat terrorist, disarm a dictator, and free a people from a tyrant. If we had gotten two out of the three things done, many of us democrats would have been happy. But we only got one, and even now, we are still struggling to make that one happen.

I see two out of three accomplished. Terrorism is not going to be defeated in one battle. But the liberation of Iraq is one step toward that goal. It is now doubly important that we see the Iraq policy through. Whether you like it or not, Bush has chosen a path and there can be no turning back. We must make Iraq a stable country which at least enjoys some of the freedoms that we take for granted or we will pay a huge price. Kerry, if elected, will have to see the Iraq policy through.

Even if the removal of Saddam, and the creation of a democracy are good things, they have not served the purpose of making Americans safer. It’s wonderful that we did so much selflessly for those people, but we didn’t get into this war for charitable reasons. We got into this because Bush did his damnedest to convince this was part of the war on terror. A war on the kind of people that really didn’t show up.

Ask yourself, “Would the removal of Kim Jong Ill and the creation of a democracy in North Korea make Americans safer?” Does the removal of any dictator make Americans safer? I have to disagree with you, it does. We are safer as a result of Saddam no longer being in power. And we did not do it selflessly, as if we gain nothing in return. It is in our self interest to foster and promote freedom and democracy throughout the world, even by ‘elective’ military force when necessary. Yes, there is a hard road ahead. We are at war. I think Democrats are painting themselves into a corner on this if they limit the war on terror to solely Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. They are important and must be dealt with, as they have been. But We can do more than one thing at a time, fight on two fronts or more, and we will win.

Let’s think about what a Kerry administration would do. He cannot pull out of Iraq too soon. He has said as much. The problem with John Kerry is that he is ephemeral. He has a habit of wanting to be on the ‘right side’ of an issue at the time. He is so open minded and ready for nuance that he is easily swayed by the direction of the political wind.

It’s interesting that the Clinton administration hasn’t pulled out the big guns to defend itself for it’s actions and inactions. It is, essentially, accepting responsibility for wha it did and did not do.

The Bush administration, in contrast, is freaking out. They are, of course, not mad about some non-existent allegation that Bush could have prevented 9/11.

FYI, three words: CYA. The Clinton administration officials who testified did nothing but praise themselves for how they were committed to fighting terrorism. Since 9/11 happened while Bush was in office, they don’t fear that they will be blamed directly.

Non-existent allegation? You have to ignore everything that comes out of the left to claim that. Hillary Clinton and others began asking the question, “What did he know and when did he know,” way back in May of 2002. Some probably before that.

I don’t think that the White House has gone overboard in reacting to this. Clark made his testimony into a PR stunt by sexing up his blame of Bush. Don’t you think that deserves a response? It is inconcievable to me how the slant in the media about this is the ‘highly partisan’ attacks of the White House.

Um, excuse me? Are the families of people killed in 9/11 only allowed to criticize Bush if they’re Republicans?

I keep hearing this supposedly damning statement, and my response remains “so… your counterpoint to ‘some 9/11 families are offended’ is ‘well, they don’t count!’?”

They do count. I don’t begrudge them their opinion. What I begrudge is the hypocrisy of pretending moral outrage when they aren’t outraged that 9/11 is being ‘misused’, rather they are insisting that any political use of 9/11 must be in agreement with them. Or else why call yourself “September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows,” and attack Republicans? It’s ok that their entire agenda is leftist. Just don’t claim moral and political superiority vis a vis a tragedy.

Anyone who has been even partially conscious over the last 20 months knows that when Bush, Rumsfeld or Cheney talk about “destroying” terrorism, they mean by using smart bombs and American soldiers, and not the taboo project of actually making America a less hated government in the middle east and therefore making Bin Laden’s recruiting campaigns much harder to pull off. -Peaceful tommorrows blames Republicans?

The truth is that the war in Iraq is part of that effort to make America a less hated government. We have a long way to go, but creating freedom and democracy, and more importantly - carrying through on our promises to do so will do just that in the long run. In the short run, it will be messy. Though it’s true, Peace can be achieved through surrender. But that’s only because peace is only achieved when all sides see the problem in the same way.

Are we the problem, or the solution? We can either look the other way when we see corruption, evil, dictatorships, oppression, and the like or we can actually do something about it. The left has lost it’s moral vision, or perhaps it has only lost the facade it used for so long crusading for ‘peace’ and human rights.

If anybody needs even more evidence of Clarke’s tendency to distort—okay, let’s just say it—LIE, then look at these two quotes. Notice that the first quote is a total contradiction, from Clarke’s own mouth, of a common falsehood repeated by Democrats on this board.

From Meet the Press:

Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
Clarke: No I did not.
Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
Clarke: Yes I did.

But

Wednesdayb before the 9/11 Commission:

Clarke: “Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I’ve been accused of being a member of John Kerry’s campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let’s just lay that one to bed. I’m not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot. “

Just look at that—a deliberate attempt to insinuate that he’d voted for Bush to avoid the much-deserved charge of partisanship. Nobody refusing to call this what it is—an obvious attempt to mislead—deserves to be taken seriously anymore in this debate.

Clark Lied and his Integrity Died! Richard Clarke—summa cum laude graduate of the Jayson Blair School of Journalism!

Martin-

Here.

This is a link to an article from which the LIE you posted is no doubt derived. Here is an exerpt from that article. (Conason is Joe Conason, the author of the article).

CONASON: Is it true that you’re a registered Republican, as someone told me yesterday?

CLARKE: Well, I vote in Virginia, and you can’t register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia. The only way that anybody ever knows your party affiliation in Virginia is when you vote in a primary, because you have to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. And in the year 2000, I voted in the Republican presidential primary. That’s the only record in the state of Virginia of my interest or allegiance.

CONASON: Will you tell me whom you voted for in the Republican presidential primary in Virginia in 2000?

CLARKE: Yeah, I voted for John McCain.

So, no, Clarke never insinuated that he voted for Bush. He voted in the Republican primary, but he voted for MCCAIN. And then he voted for Gore in the general election. There is no contracition, lie, or deceit here. Sorry to disappoint you.

Instead of posting unresearched distortions, it would be nice to see you post a response to Gaelen’s challenge posted above. As he has re-posted, I have demonstrated that a response IS possible, so I am anxious to see what you have to say.

Kathryn’s comments refute your “lie” charges effectively… but I’d like to add just a tad.

If Clarke had wanted to mislead people, the above exchange would have went differently. He could have simply said “No,” in response to the question about who he voted for in the primary. He’s never once tried to mislead people about that. He simply didn’t elaborate lavishly before the commission - that’s what a witness is supposed to do, by the way: answer only the questions posed to you. It’s not a place to give speeches, outside of the opening statement.

In fact, I wish he had gone off-question! There was a lot that he could have said that would have been even more damning (about the Iraq war, mostly). I was left disappointed that he couldn’t hit as hard as I wanted him to.

Eric, first, you’ve gotta come up with better news sources than NewsMax.

Secondly, even the NewsMax article you referenced doesn’t refute my assertion that no serious people were or are suggesting that Bush could have prevented 9/11. The quotes in that article simply show that some people wanted to investigate what went wrong, even in the White House, before 9/11.

Just because Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and others (in both parties, mind you) wanted to know what the president and his advisors knew in advance of September 11 doesn’t in the least bit mean that they think that he could have prevented it.

You seem missing the whole point of the 9/11 commission. Like the Bush administration, you seem to think that even questioning the president is equivalent to prosecuting him.

It shocked me that Clarke beat the Bush administration to the punch with his public apology for 9/11. It would have been such a powerful thing, both politically and patriotically, for the Bush administration to have taken the same degree of responsibility. I for one would feel safer about the terrorist threat if Bush apologized - it would suggest that he was trying to change his ways. But then again, the Bush administration is so intensely defensive that it could never in a million years admit policy failure. This is why the asministration can’t see the 9/11 commission as anything but a threat. They, and you, don’t see it for what it is: a tool to help make our country more secure.

The point of the 9/11 commission is to find out what we did wrong and then to fix it. The only way to find out what we did wrong is to talk about what it was that the president knew. One of the things we’ve learned from such intense questioning is that the intelligence agencies lacked coordination and communication. I’m glad we’ve learned that! And look, that conclusion doesn’t make the President look bad!

In other words, the results of these inquiries have been (and will be) to a large degree an exoneration of the President. The 9/11 commission’s report will no doubt be largely a condemnation of the CIA and the FBI’s bureaucracies, but it’s also very likely that it will totally disprove all claims that the president could have prevented 9/11.

The claim that the left is trying to suggest that the President could have prevented 9/11 is even more crazy than the crazy claim that the President could have prevented 9/11. You may try to suggest that the Democrats are alleging this, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that.

-Cf

CF-

I am aware of the purpose of the 911 commission. I am also aware of the purpose of democrats in defeating Republicans.

There’s a difference in saying ‘we’ somehow failed to uncover this plot that resulted in the death 3,000 (approx.) Americans, and saying “What did the President know, and when did he know it.” I believe that insinuates Nixon-scale coverup and scandal. Why not just say that ‘we’ need to reform the way ‘we’ do intelligence.

…he voted for MCCAIN. And then he voted for Gore in the general election. There is no contracition, lie, or deceit here. Sorry to disappoint you.

I’m not sure I see the difference Kathryn.

Someone once said that the truth is the first ca seems to sulaty of war.

So what is the truth anyway? Democrats believe one thing, Republicans believe another. So what happened in Iraq seems to depend on who one voted for in 2000. It would be an interesting excercize to see hoe ones version of the truth is based on who we voted for.

What that tells me is that all of us are off base.

Craig

Eric-

You don’t see the difference between what Martin has suggested (Clarke voted for Gore but then insinuated under oath to the 9-11 commission that he voted for Bush in the primaries) and what Clarke has said (that he voted in the Republican primary (for McCain) and then for Gore in the general election)? Ok…

The difference is that he never insinuated that he voted for Bush. He said that he voted in the Republican primary. This does NOT imply voting for Bush. Martin’s “lie” centered around Clarke implying that he voted for Bush in the primary but then voted for Gore in the end. However, Clarke never voted for Bush…not in the primary, not in the general election. He was quite consistent in his voting in that respect. And I think that if anything, Clarke’s voting in the 2000 election emphasizes his non-partisan position. He voted for the candidate he felt was best in each given match-up regardless of political party. There is no contradiction in what Clarke said or did. There is no lie, there is no deception. It is important to cut through the desperate attempts to discredit this man and focus on what he has actually said. NO ONE has yet responded to Gaelen’s challenge.

So it seems to me that no one can show that the things Clarke has said are wrong, and even the best efforts to discredit the man are pretty flimsy.

The issue here is not who anyone voted for. The voting issue is just the latest Republican effort to discredit Clarke. Unfortunately for them, it proves nothing except for how truly non-partisan Clarke is (as if we needed any more proof of that).

Does spinning that fast make you dizzy? It’s obvious what Clarke was up to—there was no other reason to make those remarks as a defense against being partisan!

Eric, I did say “we”! I said it over and over again!

-Cf

The issue here is not who anyone voted for. The voting issue is just the latest Republican effort to discredit Clarke. Unfortunately for them, it proves nothing except for how truly non-partisan Clarke is (as if we needed any more proof of that).

No, Kathryn, it proves precisely the opposite.

Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot. ”

Half truths and lies… You vote Republican in the primary and Democrat in the general election? Against the President you are now trying to paint as incompetent? Doesn’t that show some bias? Without this Salon Article you quoted, Clarke would have led me to believe that he voted for President Bush. He is obviously parsing his statement on purpose so as to innoculate himself. That’s called a half truth. (And called a lie in some circles as well.)

Clarke’s ideology and party loyalty would be part of his political motivation in writing this book and obviously his loyalty is closer to the Clinton administration than the Bush Administration.

Could it be possible that this would account for his slant on the facts and events he is attempting to put forward?

CF-

Yes, I saw your ‘we’s. I was referring to the statements asking for what the president knew.

The assertion by democratic leaders, openly by Dean for instance, is that Bush has something to hide. “What did he know?” Indeed.

We obviously need to beef up and expand our intelligence capabilities. I agree with you that the 911 commission’s purpose is needed and is a good thing. Unless democrats, as they have all but promised to do, use it as a political vehicle to slander the President in an election year.

I guess that’s what we can expect anyway. The Clarke incident is a good example of that. A few more ‘witnesses’ like that and what does the purpose of the commission look like Christopher?

Eric-

Half truths and lies… You vote Republican in the primary and Democrat in the general election? Against the President you are now trying to paint as incompetent? Doesn’t that show some bias?

That is absolutely all truth. There is no lie in there. Not even a half truth. What Clarke said to the commission was the direct answer to their question. He did not disclose who he voted for, because that was IRRELEVANT. The statement he made to the commission was intended address the record of his party affiliation. No one was asking him to indicate who he voted for. If they cared, they would have asked. Who he voted for is not the issue. The issue is whether he has loyalty to a particular party.

Voting Republican in the primary and then Democrat in the general election is a pretty good example of non-partisan voting. He has no party loyalty.

His voting shows that at no time in the 2000 election (primary or general) did he feel that George W. Bush was the best candidate for the Presidency. It should then be no surprise that he disagrees with the way he handled some stuff during the time that he worked with him. He also agreed with some stuff that he did. He’s not steadfastly against everything Bush does, but he’s also not blindly supportive of it either. While employed by the Bush administration, he emphasized the features that he was in favor of, and now that he has resigned, he is free to address the things that he dislikes as well.

So again, the issue before the commision was never who he voted for, so he was not misleading anyone. The issue was only whether he had a party affiliation, and so the answer he gave was a direct, straightforward response to that issue. That is the way sworn testimony works. You do not add extraneous details under those circumstances, and in an issue of party affililation, the specific candidate you voted for within a given party is extraneous information. He was not trying to persuade anyone to think that he voted for Bush. He simply wanted people to think that he had voted in the Republican primary and was therefore not a closet Democrat.

He’s not parsing anything. He’s testifying under oath about his PARTY AFFILIATION. Whether he voted for McCain or Bush is COMPLETELY irrelevant to that issue.

We have been over and over this. I’m tired of constantly proving that Clarke is credible. We should be addressing the things that he said. The character attacks have gotten old, and they’re not accomplishing anything.

Someone needs to respond to Gaelen’s challenge if Bush supporters want to have any hope of keeping their heads above water on this issue.

Eric, you’re right about one thing: It is certainly quite likely that many Democrats will use the findings of the 9/11 commission in their arguments to convince people to vote for Kerry.

And Bush and the Republicans are quite welcome to use the commission’s findings to show how great Bush is, too.

Both sides will try to twist the findings. The Republicans will try to say that the commission’s findings prove that when the Bush administration took office they aggressively ramped up America’s fight against terrorism. The Democrats will try to argue that the Bush administration discounted the terrorist threat for whatever reasons.

The voters will then decide who to believe (or to disbelieve both parties). If the Bush administration is already seeking to discredit the commission’s findings, it’s a good sign that they’re not confident that they can spin the commission’s results in a positive way. As usual, if they can’t win they change the game.

-Cf

Christopher,

In an attempt to highlight your last point, I will paraphrase Howard Dean:

“When I’m confronted with a set of facts that disprove my position, I throw out the position. When Republicans are confronted with a set of facts that disprove their position, they throw out the facts.”

The issue is whether he has loyalty to a particular party.

Voting Republican in the primary and then Democrat in the general election is a pretty good example of non-partisan voting. He has no party loyalty.

The lie is that he does have an affinity here. All of his campaign contributions have been to democrats. He voted for Al Gore.

Hello! This is a small detail that makes all the difference especially when this is the issue being asked ‘partisanship’.

Clarke: “Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I’ve been accused of being a member of John Kerry’s campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let’s just lay that one to bed. I’m not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot. ”

He voted for Al Gore! No Republicans I know will admit to voting for Al Gore.

Just because you work under a Republican administrations does not make you non-partisan. His good freind Randy Beers, with whom he teaches a class, also worked for Republican Adminstration, and is working for the Kerry Campaign.

Is Randy Beers non-partisan because he worked under Republican adminstrations?

Randy Beers worked in the White House for Ronald Reagan. Randy Beers worked in the White House for the first President Bush, and Randy Beers worked in the White House for the second President Bush.

And just because he is now working for Senator Kerry, I am not going to disassociate myself from one of my best friends and someone who I greatly respect and worked with for 25 years.

And, yes, I will admit, I co-teach a class at the Harvard University and Georgetown University with Mr. Beers.

> All of his campaign contributions have been
> to democrats.

Even the questionable, blatantly partisan, and self-admittedly conservative news source you cite (ads for Ann Coulter books all down the side?) doesn’t even say what you say it says. It only lists his contributions to two Democratic house candidates, both of whom seem very likely to be people he was personally friendly with having worked with them under the Clinton Administration. It doesn’t say that he “only” gave to these candidates (that is, he might have given to republicans in the same timeframe).

You may think I’m nit-picking, but such misrepresentation is par for the course for the “Insight” web site. Look at this article by the same author, where he alleges that Harvard’s JFK School of Government’s biography of Clarke makes no mention of his service to the Clinton administration. Then look at the actual Clarke page at Harvard that he’s talking about (but doesn’t link to). You’ll see that the Harvard page also doesn’t specifically reference Clarke’s service to George W. Bush. In fact, the Insight author pretty much lifted the entire Harvard page except for a few words, in particular the crucial first sentence: “Richard Clarke, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, served the last three Presidents as a senior White House Advisor.” My point is that your news source isn’t reliable.

And even if he did donate only to these two Democratic candidates in the past year or two, well, we already know that the guy was starting to think that the Bush-led GOP wasn’t exactly the best leadership this country had ever seen. If anything, these donations confirm that he was leaning towards Democrats even before his book deal.

> He voted for Al Gore! No Republicans I know
> will admit to voting for Al Gore.

Ha! All of the Republicans I know voted for Al Gore. My wife’s lifelong Republican parents, both career CIA and NSC staffers (her mother used to work for Colin Powell and with Condoleeza Rice) both voted for Gore. My grandfather, a loyal Reagan Republican and a true Texan, voted for Gore. Lots of Republicans voted for Gore. Lots of Republicans have realized how bad Bush is.

> Is Randy Beers non-partisan because he worked
> under Republican adminstrations?

So are you saying that Randy Beers should be considered a partisan Democrat just because he’s now working for Kerry? Is David Gergen a Democrat because he worked for Bill Clinton? Is John McCain a Democrat because he is close friends with Kerry?

One need look no further than James Carville and Mary Matalin to see that, in Washington, sometimes party alliances don’t mean a damn in personal relationships. Many Washington insiders are perfectly able to keep their party affiliations, their professional employment, and their personal friendships entirely separate.

Trying to show that Clarke was some kind of undercover Democratic spy is silly. If your point, however, is that Clarke might currently think that Bush is a bad president and might want his testimony and book to contribute to Bush’s defeat, well, uh, that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? He worked for Bush, learned from the inside how bad the Administration really was, and decided that he would no longer support it.

-Cf

The facts you cite to undermine Clarke’s credibility have the liability of having no connection whatsoever with the facts that make Clarke’s argument so devastating.

He strikes me as center spectrum, a hawkish sort of guy with some liberal leanings. In short, a good old fashioned Reagan Democrat. From what my brother would tell me, the Neo-Cons are not all that different.

The difference that strikes me is one of ideological fervor. The Neo-Cons are true believers, where Clarke is much more focused on nuts and bolts policy making.

I can understand the idea of being open minded, but there is a point at which open-mindedness means that you eliminate certain theories because you are open to what the facts say, rather than continuing to add possibility to possibility regardless of factual backup. The Neo-Con literature and reports depend strongly on lowered standards of proof. One example, if you’ve seen the Frontline on missile defense, is the use of the word possible in place of the world likely. in the Rumsfeld Report Many things are possible, few things are likely.

While the argument could be made that it is good to entertain the less than likely possibilities, since the world presents it’s fair share of the unexpected, such speculation often sends governments into action on counterfactual information, and makes the policy debates much more contentious to reap a reward that is that much more unlikely.

Intentions and plans do not pose the threat that actual capabilities do. Soldiers will not choke on their own body fluids in the air around a chemical weapon schematic. They will not be vaporized by the intense radiation of a nuclear blast in Saddam’s imagination. They will not fall ill from the spores of a Anthrax strain in a test tube given to a top official to hide. While I’d agree we would be better off not waiting until Saddam had that capability, I’d argue we already had the systems in place to prevent Saddam from realizing his WMD dreams.

Without those existing WMDs, and with no evidence of terrorist camps or successful terrorist/Iraqi relationships, it is still possible, but highly unlikely that Saddam would have been handing WMDs over to terrorists.

If you wanted to deal with that potential nightmare, you would have been better off going after Syria or Iran. I mean, from a purely practical perspective, those two nations aren’t even likely terrorists sponsors- they are definitively terrorist sponsors! Not only that, but it’s proven that Al Quaeda was shuttling it’s people through Iran, and that Iran had a big part in the Khobar towers bombing. Syria is the home and the originators of the Hezbollah movement, and is the country currently occupying much of Beirut. It’s them who are supporting the suicide bombers and the radical Islamists I don’t see how going up against a highly unlikely threat makes us safer when we are neglecting obvious, definitive threats right next door.

This is the crux of Clarke’s argument: that Bush and his people because of an ideological fixation on certain “received wisdom” have neglected the true threats in the war on terror both here and abroad, and that they have done so both before and after 9/11. Also: Clinton’s administration correctly recognized the threats, and acted against those countries posing them, even if their efforts were somewhat imperfect. Reading his book, I have found those arguments very conclusively stated, and very well corroborated by what I already knew. When you can respond to the evidence that supports those arguments, then I will consider the Clarke Matter rested.

His political alignment is merely incidental. If his political prejudices have skewed his presentation of the truth, then the facts themselves will reveal this distortion far better than any prima facie claim of bias, flung by political opponents often badly misinformed as to the nature of the situation.

…the guy was starting to think that the Bush-led GOP wasn’t exactly the best leadership this country had ever seen. If anything, these donations confirm that he was leaning towards Democrats even before his book deal.

That’s exactly my point. He has an axe to grind. This is what every democrat on every talk and news show is trying to refute. “No, no, he’s completely non-partisan and objective.”

Trying to show that Clarke was some kind of undercover Democratic spy is silly. If your point, however, is that Clarke might currently think that Bush is a bad president and might want his testimony and book to contribute to Bush’s defeat, well, uh, that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?

No one is saying that he is democrat spy. Just that he is not ‘non-partisan’. He has decided Bush is bad. That’s his right to have an opinion. But let’s discuss it as such. Let’s not pretend that there is no bias in Clarke’s mind about ‘the facts’.

His political alignment is merely incidental. If his political prejudices have skewed his presentation of the truth, then the facts themselves will reveal this distortion far better than any prima facie claim of bias, flung by political opponents often badly misinformed as to the nature of the situation.

Please, don’t patronize me. What if Bush had an an ‘ideological fixation’ on certain “received wisdom” which led him to bomb and or invade Afghanistan before 9/11?

He would be the same devil he is today in your mind. The truth which is coming out of these hearings is that the Bush adminsitration carried on the same policy that Clinton had. With a difference. They intended to be more ‘forward leaning’ in dealing with these threats. And began a policy review. Clarke is understandably upset that he got squeezed out.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that the Clinton administration actually did a good job considering the way events played out.

But the 9/11 commission has nothing to do with Iraq. The media spin has been that Clarke’s testimony is that somehow Bush failed to prevent 9/11 because Clarke was not listened to. He said that Clinton would have been able to prevent it!

This whole Clarke media publicity stunt reminds me of the Jim Jeffords senate switch. Republican Jim Jefford’s was hailed as the second coming in the media and by democrats. Democrats retained control of the Senate, and Jeffords was hailed as non-partisan, a man of conviction and true virtue.

Anyone who defects from the partisan, rascist, elite, rich, oppressive, fascist Republicans is obviously virtuous and thoughtful.

I hope you have heard the disclosure of John Ashcroft on Tuesday at the 9/11 commission meeting disclosing that an individual on that same committee - one Jamie Gurling wrote the damaging memo that further separated the communication between the CIA, FBI and domestic law agencies. She (while deputy attorney general under Janet Reno) took the opportunity to separate the inteligence gathering and sharing avenues even futher than was necessary by then current laws. This one memo and the subsequently building of the “wall” was the very beginning and middle of why 9/11 happened.
Another point-
In March of 1995 the ambassador of the Sudan was in Washington at the FBI seeking how to turn over Bin Laden. Where was the president? That very afternoon White House guest logs show he was with Monica Lewinsky who had introduced a friend to the president.
The intelligence community suffered under the past administration. Find out how many times a week that the commander in chief met with his CIA Director. The answer is barely at all. The security of this country and the political correctness of not profiling any particular people or race was too much a political nightmare.
SO PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT - OR AT LEAST GET BOTH SIDES SO YOU CAN STAND ON YOUR OWN MORAL FOUNDATION.

Gerald,

Not sure if your comments were directed at me, but I will address them…

SO PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT - OR AT LEAST GET BOTH SIDES SO YOU CAN STAND ON YOUR OWN MORAL FOUNDATION.

______________________________________

If there is some factual error in my post, I welcome any clarification. I am one of those people who can (and have) admitted mistakes.

If the revelation about Ms. Gorelick (note correct spelling) is true, it is somewhat significant, but not worthy of tainting the comissions findings. But, don’t you think the Bush people should’ve found this in the vetting process?

It is also small compared to the fact that FBI director Freed disallowed installing a computer network, period.

And, for every item like the March 1995 incident, I can counter with the absence, say, of Tenet from the Aug 6 PDB.

Plus, Bush had 233 days in office, why wasn’t Bin Laden killed in that period?