Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Well, here’s the deal:

Rice sucks under pressure. She’ll crack like an egg in front of the commission and come off looking really shaky and weak. This is why the administration wants to keep her out of the public eye. I know this is an opinion which will cause a lot of uproar from our Republican readers, so I’m going to do something here to blow their minds……I’m going to support my argument with facts.

Take a moment to compose yourselves and read on…

Here is Rice’s statement from 60 minutes last night:

“This commission, it takes its authority, derives its authority, from the Congress, and it is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress.”

Now here is an article about the debate over Rice’s testimony.

Here is a particularly key passage from that article:

But White House officials say it is inappropriate for a presidential adviser who is not a Senate-confirmed Cabinet officer to publicly discuss confidential advice.

The administration made the same argument in 2002 when it said Tom Ridge, then director of homeland security, would not testify under oath before Congress. Under pressure from Congress, the White House backed down, and he did testify.

“It’s a long-standing principle that the president’s advisers do not testify in front of congressional committees,” Rice said Tuesday on Fox News Radio’s Tony Snow Show. “So, as much as I would like to be able to do this, it would really not be a good precedent.”

The White House says previous administrations had the same policy.

The bipartisan commission, although it was set up by Congress, does not fall under congressional rules.

Ben-Veniste, who was a Watergate prosecutor, cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress. Among them: Lloyd Cutler, White House counsel under Clinton; Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter; and Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser. Berger is scheduled to testify before the commission today.

So it seems that sitting National Security Advisers DO testify before the Congress. AND it seems that this commission “does not fall under Congressional rules.”

Why is the White House looking for such obscure loopholes through which to pass Dr. Rice? Well, you can formulate your own theories about that one, but having seen her attempt to answer tough questions in public, I surmise that the reason is that she is terrible at it.

Kathryn, can you cite any examples of sitting national security advisors testifying under oath? In all fairness, the administration has been careful to make that distinction.

In any event, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the 9/11 commission is not Congress nor is it an instrument of Congress. It was created by Congressional legislation, signed by the president, staffed by Presidential appointment, and partially made up of former members of Congress. Rice said that the commission “takes its authority, derives its authority, from the Congress”, but that doesn’t mean that it is Congress any more than, say, the Army is Congress.

Here’s the commission’s official site, where one can read all about who they are and from whence their power is derived.

-Cf

Yes, I can site examples of SITTING National Security Advisors who have testified under oath. In fact, the same two NSAs who I have already sited fit that bill.

In addition to his recent 9-11 commission testimony, Sandy Berger testified under oath before Congress in 1997.

Here’s the introduction to that testimony just for emphasis.

Aired September 11, 1997 - 11:30 a.m. ET

JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, just a moment ago the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee got under way and resumed hearings. Today the witness is the highest-ranking official of the Clinton administration yet to testify before this committee. He is Sandy Berger, the president’s national security adviser. As you can see, he has just taken the oath and seated himself at the witness table. Let’s listen.

Incidentally, he also testified in 1994, though he was techinically *deputy* National Security Adviser at the time.

Zbigniew Brzezinski testified under oath in 1980 as Carter’s sitting National Security Adviser.

Hope this clears that up.

Kathryn, thanks!

-Cf

I don’t really care if Condi testifies. Clark has politicized and compromised the findings. The whole proceedings are just an extention of the political campaign now.

Thank you Mr. Clark.

That’s good Craig. the stated goal of the commission is not to place blame (that’s just a bonus), it’s to provide information to be used in keeping smething like 9/11 from happening again.

Thank you for being so willing to chuck all that testimony out because it has a bearing on the quality of the current administration’s counter-terrorism policies.

And remember this: the Democrats wanted a non-partisan panel. The Republicans went with the current format because they thought it would go easy on President Bush. Hahaha!

Recent polling numbers suggest that a full 50% think Clark’s comments were politically motivated. Speaking on TV on 60 minutes with a show that is financially in bed with your publisher? Voting for Clinton and Gore. Making millions off of the 9/11 crisis. He turned an important hearing into a circus. Democrats will love him, Repubicans will hate him. History will show his comments to be a part of the democrat attempt win the presidency back.

I cannot imagine how Condi can move the commission back to where it should be.

The truth as I see it simply depends on if you are a democrat or a republican. In otherwords a persons opinion about 9/11, the economy etc simply depends on if there is and R or a D after your name.

Do you really think Kerry is the answer???

CH

Craig-

Clark has politicized and compromised the findings.

Um…how? By being non-partisan and giving sworn testimony under oath? By submitting his book for publishing in October only to have it delayed by the Bush administration until now so that they could accuse him of things like “policiz[ing] and compromis[ing]” the 9-11 commission?

Haven’t we gotten past the attacks on Clarke? I guess that’s become the Bush administration’s new crutch: if you’re under the gun for something, attack Richard Clarke.

SOME PEOPLE: Rice should testify in public.

WHITE HOUSE: Oh, she can’t, see, ‘cuz there’s this long-standing policy and stuff.

SOME PEOPLE: Well, what about these other dudes?

WHITE HOUSE: Oh, well they weren’t sitting National Security Advisers testifying before Congress.

SOME PEOPLE: Sure they were.

REPUBLICANS: Oh yeah? Well, we hate Richard Clarke. Have we mentioned that he’s a bad, bad man?

AMERICA: Huh?

In conclusion, Rice should testify.

Craig-

Recent polling numbers suggest that a full 50% think Clark’s comments were politically motivated.

Recent polling numbers also suggest that a full 50% think ClarkE’s comments were NOT politically motivated.

Neither of these stats shows us the true motivation of the statements. These numbers show us the public perception . Not only that, they show the perception among a certain sample group. Could you provide the poll?

Not only did Clarke vote for Clinton and Gore, he voted for McCain in the Republican primary in Virginia.

I doubt very sincerely that history will remember a 30 year veteran of 4 administrations, a man with a solidly non-partisan record of national service, as a clown attempting to swing the 2004 election for the Democrats. History may note that the Republicans resorted to desperate character attacks in an attempt to discredit an honorable public servant, but ultimately, since no one can disprove Clarke’s claims, he comes out of all of this pretty clean.

Back to the point, Rice should testify.

Just for accuracy, I’d like to modify my claim that polling numbers suggest that 50% think Clarke’s comments were NOT politically motivated….

…I *should* say that all I can infer without the poll is that 50% DON’T think Clarke’s comments WERE politically movitated.

Great commentary from all of you. Thanks for that.

I want to point out that just because someone happens to write a book, that doesn’t mean they aren’t telling the truth. I’m not sure when authorship was equated with lying, but get this — writing a book doesn’t mean you’re making up stuff.

Do you really think Kerry is the answer???

Yes.

the long standing principle that Dr. Rice is talking about is the Separation Of Powers Doctrine, that is the baisis for our entire government. I would not call merely a precident. Because Dr. Rice is appointed by the president and does not have to go through congressional approval, having her answer under oath to congress would overstep congresses powers. The only person that she answers to is the president. I think that it is very gratious that she is even willing to speak to them behind closed doors, because she does not even need to do that. If we started making all appointments answer to congress the Presidency would be severly weakened, and congress would be strengthened mightely, at its expence and the expence of liberty.

Miguel-

I refer you back to my first post in this thread, and specifically, to the article sited within that post.

Sitting National Security Advisers have testified under oath before Congress in the past as have other non-Congressionally approved Presidential advisers. This may not be common practice, but Presidents have supported such testimony when it was in their best interests.

If the White House wanted Rice to testify, they could let her. There is certainly a precident for that. Instead, they feel that her testimony would be damaging to them, and so they are trying to sheild it from public scrutiny.

50% of peopled polled think Clark’s comments were politically motivated, 25% think they were not.

Those of you who believe in Clark are democrats. Those of us who think he is disingenious are pretty much republicans.

My point is that the committee has been hopelessly brought into the campaign. This thread absolutely proves the point.

The commission has turned into a re elect Bush or an elect Kerry adventure. Clark’s intrusion of politics into the commission has commpromised the whole thing. Unless the commission comes up with close to a unanamous decision, I really don’t care what they say, because I simply think it means which side (reelect Bush, or elect Kerry) had the most votes.

If Condi wants to testify she can as far as I’m concerned. She can even wear an “Bush in 2004” button. Why not Clark has paved the way!!!!!

Craig

BTW, the Democrats’/anti-bushies’ new pinup for the month of march Dick Clarke refused to testify to congress in 1999, siting the same reasons as Dr Rice. That was in reguards to the Y2K stuff that we were all hysterical about some 4 years ago. here a link:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/29/172749.shtml

For the record::

What do Americans think of Clark??

50% think Clark was politically motivated.

25% think he was not

25% are undecided.

Source: Princeton Survey Research Associates for Newsweek. Taken March 25-26, 2004.

You can find this at www.pollingreport.com

Mr. Clark is a Democrat who has contributed many times to democrat candidates, never repubican candidates, who voted for both Clinton and Gore. He is now a millionaire because of 9/11.

The commission has been compromised.

Craig

Craig-

Where’s the actual poll? There is a lot more to statistics than meets the eye. Not only that, public perception has NOTHING to do with the true motivation of the statements. Additionally, public perception has NOTHING to do with the commission’s findings.

Yes, Clarke’s book and his testimony before the commission will impact people’s votes. That doesn’t mean that this whole thing is a big campaign ad for either side. It means that people will scrutinize those who are running for President using all available data.

Miguel-

Executive priviledge CAN be claimed for Rice and for Clarke and for other such officials. The argument is that it does not HAVE to be claimed. Rice is stating that she *really, really* wants to testify, and that Bush would dearly love for her to testify. They claim that it’s just impossible for her to do so. That’s simply not true. She certainly CAN testify. So if she and the President are so gung ho for her to do it, then there is no reason why he cannot waive her executive priviledge like other Presidents have done in the past when they felt it was warranted.

Craig-

Thanks for the poll. Here’s another interesting tidbit from the SAME poll where your data is derived:

“How much attention have you paid to what former government official Richard Clarke told the commission investigating the September 11th attacks this week … ?” N=1,002 adults, MoE ± 3

A LOT: 25%

SOME: 25 %

NOT TOO MUCH: 44%

DON’T KNOW: 6%

So, like I said, all you’re talking about is public opinion. And the majority of the public in question is largely uninformed about what Clarke actually said.

Wave her rights? I dont care what the President and or Dr. Rice say they want to do, that is just politics, I am saying that they should not have to cowtow to congress and the constitution backs the president and me up. This is just a bold attempt to get anything they can on Bush and his minions, and the separation of powers was created to keep congress from doing exactly what its trying to do: subvert the power of the president by making him and or those whose power is derived from the presidency to testify to congress about every move they make.

BREAKING NEWS: A Bush administration official says the White House will allow Condoleezza Rice to testify in public under oath to the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Happy now?

Craig, your arguments don’t make a lick of sense here. How can someone testifying about the truth they experienced politicize the commission? It’s political all of a sudden because you don’t like what he’s saying? Or because he actually assigns some blame? Is blame intrinsicly political? How on earth does that make sense?

Also, I love Kathryn’s point about how it’s the Republicans that keep bringing up Clarke. I’ve seen Martin do it on 2 threads that had absolutely nothing to do with Clarke… “Oh, you’re being critical of the Bush Administration? Well, that guy Clarke sure is a biggot, isn’t he?” (mock quote, of course)

At this point, I’m still waiting for some reponses to what Clarke has SAID rather than what a bad man he is.

Also, who else thinks that Frist didn’t get permission before he called for Clarke’s testimony to be declassified? Clarke has now called that bluff, specifically asking for documents to be declassified so that he can prove to the public that the plan he gave them in January (which they said they never recieved, then retracted) was the verbatim plan that they decided on September 4th, 2001. On top of that, if they declassify Clarke’s without also declassifying Dr. Rice’s, how will that look?

It’s almost like the savvy polical machine that Rove commands has totally jumped its tracks. They’re thrashing here, and everyone knows it. They should have saved some of their character attack ammo that they used on the droves of other advisors that they’ve had to smear.

Finally, in a stunning turn of events, I bring you this story.

In a reversal, the White House has agreed to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testify in public and under oath before the Sept. 11, 2001 commission, NBC News has learned. In addition, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have agreed to testify before the entire commission, not just the two co-chairmen.

On the subject of thrashing… Smackdown.

Presidents Clinton and Carter overrode the executive priviledge of their National Security Advisers to allow these individuals to testify. So it is possible to do so. If the Bush administration wants Rice to testify as much as they claim they want her to, then they can let her. They claim that they CAN’T let her testify. Sure they can. They just don’t want to. Why not? Because they don’t think it will help their case.

If Rice could give amazingly powerful testimony that portrayed the Bush administration in a glowing light, and if she could come across as a strong and powerful official while doing so, they would be getting her under oath faster than they can unroll a map of Afghanistan on the table at Camp David.

Interestingly, they changed the contents of that MSNBC story between the time it was initially posted and the time that I submitted my story… I’m going to read both to see what the changes are. Wont that be interesting?

Correction, the White House is allowing her to testefy only if the comission signs something saying that this will NOT become precedent. This is exactly what carter and clinton should have done if they had thought a little bit about a little thing called the Constitution.

Alright, excellent.

So it would seem that she actually CAN testify afterall.

Good of them to recognize that.

Craig, it is impossible to write a report regarding the performance of certain duties of government, such as pre-911 counterterrorism, without such political issues coming into play. What Clarke has done is not politicize the debate, but kicked it into high gear by removing the sacred cow image of Bush’s performance in the war on terror before 9/11.

Of course you will find that uncomfortable, given that you are politically aligned with the president, and that the accusations and assertions he make spoil the image of foreign policy strength for the President. Were I in your position, I would fight the accusations too. I denied Monica Lewinsky up to the point the president admitted it. It is certainly a humbling experience.

All things consider, the facts and events recounted by Clarke do not seem to be that untrustworthy, and Clarke seems willing to back himself up on these things, not play semantic or political games with audience. Show me the evidence that Bush has increased funding for first responders, rather than decreased it, as has been reported. Show me that Bush took terrorism seriously by setting up dedicated, fully funded counterterrorism initiatives, and that he was not merely briefed by George Tenet, but that he took actions based on Tenet’s recommendations.

The response you and the other conservatives have mounted, unfortunately, is to hearken back to Clinton’s failures. But in Clark’s book, there is tons of evidence that Clinton’s failures were counterbalanced by a willingness to learn, and a drive to counter the bureaucratic inertia in the FBI, the CIA, and the Defense Department. Where’s the evidence that the Bush administration was attempting any such things?

I don’t trust anything that they say. VP Chaney is probably in charge, with all of those unelected power hungry ex-corporation executives sitting around Secretary Rice who is under the hot lamp. I’ll bet the phones are cooking with the White House trying to control the questioning. I’ll bet Ms. Rice is going over and over her answers to every possible query. Spin, evade, obfuscate, confuse, disguise, conceal, cloak, cover up, cover up, COVER UP! Yes, I felt the same way when President Clinton was in office. This paranoid need for secrecy is a sickness that is killing the America I love. If not then I must be the paranoid one.

Here’s a fun game to play at home:

Watch Rice’s testimony and see how long it takes for this phrase to appear “[something about going to Camp David after 9-11], and it was a map of Afghanistan that was unrolled on the table.”

One thing that is sure to come out of these hearings is a clear understanding of exactly which map was unrolled on that table.

Phew.

Miguel, the NewsMax story you linked to fails to point out that the 9/11 commission is not Congress. The Y2k Senate committee was entirely a Congressional committee, wholly owned and operated by the Legislative branch of the government. Condoleeza Rice was arguing that she shouldn’t testify before Congress - her argument was full of crap because she was not (I should now say is not) going to testify before Congress at all.

The 9/11 commission, while authorized by Congress, is in fact, technically, an Executive Branch body. So, in effect, Clarke’s argument and Rice’s arguments were not the identical, as the article alleges. Thus the NewsMax article is false.

-Cf

> What Clarke has done is not politicize the
> debate, but kicked it into high gear by
> removing the sacred cow image of Bush’s
> performance in the war on terror before 9/11.

Well put, Stephen. For the first time since September 11 (and, arguably, for the first time in Bush’s whole political career) the press is actually starting to allow itself to discuss negative facts about the President’s leadership. The free ride is apparently over.

-Cf

Sandy Berger didn’t testify in his capacity as NSA and he didn’t testify regarding POLICY on 9/11/97 … how’s that date for irony?

He testified regarding lapses in security in connection with campaign finance improprieties while he was a deputy head at the White House office.

He didn’t testify in ‘94, as ben-Veniste alleges … he briefed a congressional committee in closed session.

Zbig got his rear hauled before a Senate committee called to “Investigate the Activities of Individuals Representing the Interests of Foreign Governments …” for reasons reflective in the name: namely, investigation into his connection to improper/illegal conduct. The date that little soiree was kicked off … in the event anyone wants to read the proceedings … was Wednesday, September 17, 1980.

Long and short: no sitting NSA has ever appeared in public under oath before ANY congressional committee to give testimony regarding POLICY. Never ever.

Not surprisingly, Ben-Veniste lied. And quite soon, it’ll be evident others have lied, as well.

Sammi, each case you bring up is of a NSA called up to discuss behavior relating to their tenure while in office, and here we have one of the most historic events in recent times, and you’re saying there’s no justification for drawing testimony from a sitting NSA? Should we wait to convene the committee until Bush is safely out of office? That would seem like such a waste of time. Besides, is there a law or a constitutional constriction prohibiting that?

As for evidence of further lying, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Whoa, Stephen!

Dr. Rice is NOT being “called up to discuss behavior relating to … tenure while in office”.

Were that the case, there’d be no question of propriety, because no individual member of a sitting government is immune to inquiry into or prosecution of improper/illegal conduct. But that is NOT the case. Dr. Rice did not, or is she accused of, breaking any law or violating any rule; or helping anyone else to do so. Previous NSAs were.

The commission wants her to testify about POLICY, Stephen. POLICY. That’s beyond the pervue of Congress or any congressional body …
a violation of separation of powers. I really don’t know what else to say to make it more understandable for you.

If you sincerely think that this commission’s
convention’s capable of substantive contribution of this country’s protection, I’d like to talk with you about some swamp land.

But let there be no misunderstanding: The validations for precedence in calling NSAs to testimony were articulated by Ben-Veniste … and Ben-Veniste lied.

Ben-Veniste’s lie tells me that he … and those who support his statement … are willing to lie about other matters of substance; invalidating the legitimacy of the commission’s existence.

Kathryn,
First, I would like to say that your presentation of this point was a little immature ( biased slang exaggeration).
But more importantly I would like to state that just because other National Security Advisors testified doesn’t mean that it was the right thing to do or that those cases are the same as this one! The President needs people in whom he can confide and from whom he can receive advice without either him or his advisor worrying about being open. The cases in which the other National Security Advisors testified were not the same as this case. Comparing two or more unsimilar cases is not logical. It would be like the Supreme Court deciding that a law was constitutional based on two irrelevant cases.

Kathryn,
Sorry the argument to which I was referring was your reply to Craig on March 29, 2004 at 10:34 PM
Ellen

The President needs people in whom he can confide and from whom he can receive advice without either him or his advisor worrying about being open.

Ms. Kolf, bearing in mind that it’s expected and accepted that anyone being questioned will refuse to divulge national security secrets, can you give an example of why the President or his advisors would need to worry about being open?

I would think that’s something the American people expect from their government.

Has everyone her forgotten what Clark has said in the past…

Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in ‘02
Wednesday, March 24, 2004

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush’s former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News’ Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter’s decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy — uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn’t get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

In response to this release, Clark said he was told to say that. I think Dr. Rice will show the facts in documentation to prove the above to be true.

Here is the Ann Coulter version…

How 9-11 Happened
March 31, 2004

We don’t need a “commission” to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after “the allies” promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi’s residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy “by mistake.”

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan’s policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn’t “finish off the job” with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: “The youth … realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.”

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam’s forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as “by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.”

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was “tired of swatting flies” – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida’s base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.

There is all we need to see. Tell me Ann is wrong, her facts, dates, and information are correct. I happen to enjoy her writing style as well.

Alex