Democrats & Liberals: Archives

“As for Richard Clarke I am still reading his book but it represents a break with his history so profound that I am astonished that he has written it.”

Take out the second “his” and you’ll have something we can all agree on.

Martin-

Really? You don’t say? I thought you had all but admitted that you believed Clarke? No? Ok, well in that case, perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to FINALLY support this idea that Clarke is lying and RESPOND TO GAELEN’S CHALLENGE…here…I’ll repost it since it has been ignored for so long (again)…

CLAIM #1: “Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked “urgent” asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says “principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.” No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #2: “The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I’ve learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that “It is not surprising that people make that connection” between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said “we don’t know” if there is a connection.

CLAIM #3: “[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things.” - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

FACT: “Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President’s principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did.” - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #4: “In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations…The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: “Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft’s ‘Strategic Plan’ from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department’s seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft’s predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ‘the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.’” - Washington Post, 3/22/04

CLAIM #5: “The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: “In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.” – Washington Post, 3/22/04

CLAIM #6: “Well, [Clarke] wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04

FACT: “The Government’s interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or “CSG”) chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period.” - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM #7: “[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring.” - Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04

FACT: “Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and ‘I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.’ Neither Cheney’s review nor Bush’s took place.” - Washington Post, 1/20/02

Ok. Until you refute this, you should stop calling Clarke a liar.

Kathryn: hehe. Thanks.

It is interesting, though. I too thought that Martin had basically ceded the point back in the first thread… you remember, the one with over 70 comments? Strange.

One question, Martin:

Have you read the book, or is “Clarke lies” your default position? And don’t tell me you don’t need to read the book.

The book is not itself a history, but I will tell you this: Clarke was on the ground and in the room for some of the most important decisions before or after 9/11. He was in room when the King of Saudi Arabia made the decision to let American troops into his country. He was in the room, in the White House on 9/11 even as the rest of the staff were fleeing for their lives. He was presented with passenger lists of the planes hijacked and was astonished to discover Al Quaeda terrorists on that list under their real names!

Clarke’s evidence is on the table. Do you even know what it is he actually says?

If you have read his book, well then, start debunking what he actually wrote, not the paper tiger your pundits and talk radio hosts have created. In the meantime, I’m waiting.

Recent polls:

USA today reports the following.

“The spit - 44% believe Clark and 46% back the Bush administration - is largely along party lines: 76% of democrats side with Clark, and 83% of Republicans with Bush.”

So basically where we all stand on Clark seems to depend on where we sit.

By a 2-1 margin the general public thinks Clark’s comments are politically motivated.

My prediction is that after Condi speaks under oath in public that her numbers will be much like Clark’s.

If I were to advise her, I would tell her to not slam Clinton or Clark as they really aren’t critical. What is critical is the charge to the commission, and restoring the credibility of the commission. Give the commission the information they are requesting. Keep the discussion factual. Be ready to answer the questions like presented above in this thread.

Read the commissions charge over and over. Direct every answer back to the purpose that the commission is formed for. In each answer help the commission do it’s job. If you do that well, you may serve your country well.

Craig

And by all means speak well of Clark.

I thought I did respond to “Gaelen’s Challenge” (or should we call in Gordian’s Knot) some time ago. I know how easily things can get lost or overlooked around here with so many simultaneous threads. Basically I discussed how juxtaposing out-of-context quotes and snippets with additional out-of-contexts and snippets which have already been labeled a priori “facts” is no way to have a debate. Not without an exhaustive and burdensomely time-consuming examination of the original documents and transcripts in their entirely (which would additionally have to be checked against timelines)—which, to be fair, none of you have done either. Even then, though, I responded to several specific points on that list. Of course you’re going to say that I’m just being evasive, that I’ve got to sit eternally in this particular docket with the hangman’s noose already around my neck, but please. I’m posting in a comments section of a blog, not writing my own book to counter Clarke’s (which is what you seem to want from po’ little me).

There is plenty of evidence of the existence of gross inconsistencies on the part of Clarke—in both written and public statements and in the written and public statements of others. Refuting this is not as easy and cutting and pasting part of an article from Slate Magazine (wasn’t it?). Any of us could do similar things all day—in fact, why don’t you check this out from today’s NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/30/politics/30CLAR.html

Yes, yes, Martin. The whole, “I don’t have to answer your questions because they are unfair” argument. Kathryn refuted this arguement beautifully, and if you don’t agree, you could at least state why her reasoning is off. Here it is again:

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.

Well, let’s just jump ahead to step 5—I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about this.

Craig-

Can you link to the specific poll? Polls are notoriously misconstrued. For instance, as I have shown you, your 2-1 margin is also quite similar to the margin between people who don’t know too much about what Clarke said and those who do.

Stop relying on polling numbers to devalue the commission’s work. The commission’s credibility has not been damaged except in the eyes of those who will resort to any means necessary to tarnish the words of Richard Clarke. Those people should “grow up” as Henri suggests.

Yes, Rice should be ready to answer the questions like the ones presented above. Similarly, all of you who are so eager to discredit Clarke should be able to respond to those points or your argument holds no water.

Martin-

Ah, well then you did not see my clear step by step discussion of how possible it is for you to show us why you believe that the points in the challenge are incorrect. You must believe that they are incorrect to think that Clarke is not to be believed. So show us the way, Martin. You say you have refuted these points, but I recall no such refutation. I recall a solid avoidance of the challenge altogether. What does that remind me of? Oh yeah, Bush ignoring Kerry’s monthly debate challenge.

I read your article, and essentially, it says that somoene else (who was a “long-time beaurocratic rival” of Clarke’s) is saying that he remembers things differently than Clarke and that ultimately no one remembers things well. This argument of fuzzy-memory is another Bush administration favorite. Rumsfeld’s testimony before the 9-11 commission was filled with “i’m told…” in other words he was told that he did certain things, said certain things or even was told certain things. he seemed to remember very little for himself.

Memory differences don’t discredit Clarke. They’re clearly a ploy, and as Henri says, it’s time to “grow up.”

Martin-

Well, let’s just jump ahead to step 5—I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about this.

Ok, that’s what I thought you would say. Until you can actually SHOW us WHY you disagree, you don’t have much of a case, so please stop trying to say that Clarke isn’t credible. I’m glad we can finally put the discrediting of Richard Clarke to bed. The poor thing needed some rest. It was so busy running around in circles and getting nowhere lately.

The basic idea that I’m putting forward here is that my opinions on Clarke et al are based on evidence that I have seen, or that I have read about. I can actually cite that stuff, thereby completing steps in the back and forth argument process that I envision.

It almost seems like you’re saying that your opinions are based on faith, rather than evidence, since you don’t feel like citing any. If that’s your position, then that’s fine… but you should just come out and say it. I wont bash you for it… but I would think that it’s a shame that faith-based-voting and likability trump the evidence at hand.

It’s amazing how fuzzy a GOPer’s memory gets when it comes to testifying under oath. Does anyone remember Reagan’s repeated “I can’t recall that”? Of course in hindsight he probably couldn’t recall what he had for breakfast that morning either. But what excuse will the Bushies have for their memory lapses?

I believe Clarke is telling the truth, and the assertions from the Bushies that he is not is typical of the smear campaigns the GOP engages in when they can’t counter with the truth (see Anita Hill for more on smear campaigns). If they don’t like the message they simply destroy the messenger.

Fine, if you insist I’ll play along a little, even though you get to write all the rules to this game. But for the record, these aren’t even close to all the “claims” made against Clarke. Let’s choose one—how about #6?

CLAIM #6: “Well, [Clarke] wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04

FACT: “The Government’s interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or “CSG”) chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period.” - White House Press Release, 3/21/04

Okay, so a “forum” chaired by Clarke often met. So this proves he was in the loop at the highest level? A forum? To be frank, a forum sounds like a think tank, a bunch of guys eating doughnuts and looking at PowerPoint presentations. But of course you know otherwise, you’ve reviewed the history and composition of this forum (who Bush, Cheney, Rice and the joint chiefs must all belong and answer to—since belonging to it proves that Clarke was in the loop at the hightest level), and you know that this forum has duties of profound importance and responsibility, that it is in fact a key part of our national security apparatus?

I’m sure you researched all this before you presented this as a fact. You’d have to. Am I right?

Wait a minute. Condi herself refuted Cheney’s “out ot the loop” statement.

Out of the loop on A LOT OF THIS STUFF is what we’re talking about (see they Cheney quote). Nobody’s saying Clarke was living in an igloo at the North Pole.

Kathryn:

The polling data is the same as I mentioned in the previous thread.

Is your point that Clark’s information only has much impact on news addicts like all of us??

Craig

There’s an old saying; “Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.” Unless you’re willing to point to the actual poll, those numbers are meaningless.

First, I think you should look at the(or rather listen to the review that this James Risen guy gives of Clarke’s book It’s rather nice and even-handed.

Then you should actually read the introduction to Clarke’s book, where he basically caveats the account that follows as taken from memory, and from his personal vantage point, rather than claim it a completely objective account.

As for Miller’s account, knowing what I do about memory, they both may very well be telling the truth. Miller would have focused on and been in a position to witness different things than Clarke. Same the other way. When dealing with first person accounts it is always crucial to understand that memory is reconstructive, and shaped by different forces away from objectivity.

Which is why you corroborate, and why you go out and find objective evidence.

Only a person who has not read Clarke’s book, or read it poorly, could assume that Clarke’s account is by any means intended as definitive or presented as verbatim.

But to say that you don’t need to read the central books in a controversy is to say that you will simply rely on the authority of what your party says about it. I have Bob Woodward’s book Bush At War, and Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty on hold at the library waiting for my pickup. Why? Because I want to do more than simply repeat my party’s positions, my candidate’s and pundit’s opinions. I want to be one of those persons who knows what the myths and the deceptions are. I want to know more about what those people actually said than the soundbites and the conventional wisdom.

Why? Because it gives me power. It allows me to ask the questions that prevent our government officials from getting lazy or comfortable with a system that doesn’t work. It allows me to know what it is I am arguing about. You didn’t didn’t know about Clarke’s caveat about the nature of the book. You might have known if you had read it.

I took a class at Baylor called the Diffusion of Innovations. When you hear about “first adopters”, “early adopters” and the like, that’s the paradigm. Essentially, an idea or invention first adopted by a select few, able to absorb the results of the failures among those items, and then it diffuses through the population by means of groups of persuasive individuals who popularize the items they like, and the items that work.

Now, we can say that any new idea will follow this pattern, Craig. The notion of the Bush White House having failed to continue Clinton’s active fight against terrorism, if born up by the facts, will in due time change the public’s opinion, as the people who others trust to give them insight on the world start to become convinced of the idea in question. I think, with bestseller status, Clarke’s work will percolate through the popular culture. What happens after that is still to be determined, especially if there are any really substantial bombshells that develop in the coming months.

Michael:

Sorry I got you and Kathryn mixed up. I already mentioned the sourse today on a previous thread.

Here is where I found them.

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

The actual numbers are:

50% believe Clarks motives are political

25% believe he is sincere

25% are not sure.

Hope this helps.

CH

P.S. I am of the camp that believe Clark’s motives are political.

He sensationalized his viewpoint in print and on 60 minutes. He has made a huge profit off of 9/11. He happens to vote Democratic and contributes to Democratic campaigns. Don’t have much time for the man. Looks too much like an opportunist.

Craig, I’m going to ask of you what I have asked of Martin: Have you read the book?

Let me ask you and him an additional question: Can you afford not to? Like it or not, the Democrats have found the wedge they are going to drive between Bush and his primary pillar of support among moderates. Seeing as he has dropped eight points in that same poll on the question of his foreign policy, and most questions about who believes what end up half against him and half for him, I can hardly see how this is an insignificant issue.

You may dismiss Clarke, but you do so at your own peril, because his questions will be the question you will be trying to answer from here to Election day.

Stephen:

I might read the book someday. I am still struggling with a person making so much money off of 9/11. It is pretty offensive to me. The sensationalism deeply angered me as well. I would give him a better read after I cool down a bit.

I would be surprized if he is negotiating for a movie contract.

I will read a copy if I can pick one up without contributing to him financially. Maybe a library has one.

CH

CLAIM #6: “Well, [Clarke] wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04

Well if this were true, it says more about the inability of Bush’s administration to effectively deal with terrorism than it does anything to weaken Clarke’s position. Why on earth would the president leave the highest ranking anti-terrorism official out of any discussions involving terrorism, especially one who had been serving is terror-related capacities for 4 adminsitrations? Clarke was fighting terrorism when Bush was still back in Texas f’ing up oil deals.

Stephen, I have not read the book—so?

Clarke has given numerous television interviews and has given testimony before Congress—the key points he’s making are completely before the public eye. Did you read the book before stating your impressions of Clarke? We know Henri hasn’t finished reading it yet—does that mean he has to remain quiet until he does? Let’s not pretend that Democrats are operating on a superior level of knowledge here.

And I for one am not going to buy the book and help line Clarke’s pockets—because if I do, then the error-ists will have won.

Craig-

I was asking about your USA Today poll. I realized that the other data you sited was from the same poll as earlier.

Is your point that Clark’s information only has much impact on news addicts like all of us??

My point is that if you don’t really pay attention to something, how accurately can you judge it? 44% of people in that poll said that they paid “not too much” attention to thing things Clarke said in his testimony. 25% said they paid a lot of attention. These numbers correlate nicely to the differences in people who believe Clarke and those who think he is politically motivated. As Stephen has pointed out, as a group of people starts to believe something and advertise it, more people will believe it. Stats like these are impacted by all sorts of confounding factors, and they really should not be used to show…well…anything. They don’t show Clarke’s true motivation, and they don’t show that the commission has been trivialized. People who don’t believe Clarke weren’t paying attention to the commission anyway, it would seem.

Martin-

So out of that entire challenge, you chose to refute ONE claim? One that has ALREADY been shown by the administration to be a misstatement on Cheney’s part?

I certainly hope that YOU researched the supposed triviality of this forum before you marginalized its importance. In doing so, you probably came across articles like these:

This one has the following to say about the forum:

Rice has described the work of the council’s Counterterrorism Security Group, directed by Special Assistant Richard Clarke, which met several times each week during July and August. By Aug. 6, Bush received a briefing report with the heading, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States.” The report discussed the possibility of traditional airline hijackings.

Here is a timeline which includes the following entry:

July 5
• National Security Council terrorism chief Richard Clarke convenes a White House meeting of the Counterterrorism Security Group; then meets with Rice and Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card; then meets again with CSG plus, Federal Aviation Administration, FBI and Immigration and Naturalization Service. Clarke tells them: “something spectacular is going to happen.”
• Non-essential travel of U.S. counterterrorism staff suspended.
• President Bush asks Rice to find out what is being done about terror warnings.

Yep, sounds to me like a fluffy little think tank which was probably far-removed from the highest level of intelligence information about terrorism prior to 9-11. Of course, if that’s what it was, the President certainly didn’t do all that he could have to combat terrorism during the first 8 months of his administration.

In other news, some of the proceeds from Clarke’s book will go to 9-11 families. How disgusting! It is not Clarke’s “right, his priviledge, or his responsibility” to do that! Sounds worthy of a boycott to me! Right on, brothers!!!

Actually, your quotes prove my point.

The forum met regularly for some time before they completed and submitted a brief to the president on August 6.

They were allowed to put a piece of paper in the president’s inbox—wow, now that is in the loop!

Martin-

Yes, right. I’m sure you also believe that this forum couldn’t order a pizza if they wanted to.

The quotes clearly show that this was a high-level group of people with access to highly sensitive intelligence information which turned out to be quite relevant. THAT’S in the loop. Anyway, regarless of whether you believe her, Rice has already said that Clarke was in the loop and that Cheney’s remarks weren’t exactly fair.

And to paraphrase (or perhaps quote directly) Al Franken on Thursday’s Daily Show, “If he wasn’t in the loop, THERE WAS NO LOOP!”

Perhaps you could address another point from that list which hasn’t already been shown to be a ridicuolus idictment of Bush (keeping Clarke out of the loop) and/or just plain false.

Craig, why don’t you take a trip to your book store or library and take a count of how many books there are on 9/11? I think what you have a problem with is Clarke’s opposition to the Bush Administration, who, if I’m not mistaken, you support.

The question is why you support them. Why you support Bush. I know why I oppose him. I have learned things that have made me very doubtful of Bush’s qualifications, and/or those of his advisors. If you ask, I can relate those reasons to you, and furthermore present you with some facts that might sway your opinion. But if your only response is to stick to your orthodox sources, you will be doomed to forever misunderstand what I’m saying to you.

My advice is put aside your anger and read him now, so you won’t be wading into the fray unprepared, or only informed by people who may have an interest in being selective with the facts.

————————————————-

Martin, right now, Henri is making the effort. He is improving himself from being an uninformed spectator, to an active debator on the book.

In my Journalism writing class, I was surprised to learn just how short the average news copy was for broadcast news. an average story may cover no more than a page, boxed in along side descriptions of the shots. Even in comparison to denser screenwriting formats, prose writing is very think, and very dense. You are starving yourself of much of what he has actually expressed. The points you have already seen are just the tip of the iceberg.

I’m finished with the book. Henri is actually some ways into the book. Right now that is two democrats who know more about what Clarke wrote than you do.

Oh well, I suppose you can continue to claim errors exist in Clarke’s book. But what errors? What are the particular points he’s wrong on? Where does he insert a huge amount of opinion, and a small amount of fact? Does he address the point elsewhere in other media?

Also, if you’re not personally familiar with the text, you’re having to rely on somebody who is. That somebody may be the person commenting. Or it could be somebody two or three links down the chain of gossip and rumor, with all the attendant error and bias applied. I mean, has Rush read it himself, or has he left it to a research assistant who will just feed him the stuff that “sounds” unreliable?

I don’t have to worry about that. I can go through the source itself, quote at my discretion, and bring up the things that interest me, where they might not catch the eye of another commentator.

The question, plainly put, is how much control you want over the debate. Those who seek out and find their own sources and make their own analysis of the material have a freedom that those who don’t lack.

The one thing I am completely missing is the fact that if Richard Clarke was an agenda free pure soul, why didn’t he blow the whistle on the Bush administration and its national security shortcomings lets say in July/August 2001. Is it a possibility that just like the Bush administration he did not think that something at the level of 9/11 could ever be executed by terrorists? Was it not his moral duty to humanity to speak out against the oversights of the Bush administration before and immediately after 9/11?

He was presented with passenger lists of the planes hijacked and was astonished to discover Al Quaeda terrorists on that list under their real names!

Why was he astonished to discover Al Queada terrorists on that list? If they were in this country of ours, shouldn’t he have known some how? Based on that assessed the threat and told Rice that these guys are up to no good and if Rice didn’t listen taken the issue to press like he is doing right now? Could he have saved the lives of many on 9/11?

And no, I have not read the book because I am not a speed reader.

Stephen, I don’t doubt that reading the book would provide a fuller picture of what Clarke wants to say, but the fact remains that Clarke is now a public figure making public statements in public forums and we are perfectly justified in evaluating those statements without limiting our discussion solely to what material he has decided to include in his book—don’t try to evade all criticism of Clarke with this tactic. And especially don’t suggest that we’re all “uninformed” if we haven’t waded through Clarke’s reams of turgid prose. (How does Henri feel, by the way, about being commended in that fashion for trying to better himself—you speak about a fellow Democrat as though he were a third grader still spelling out his words and trying to tie his own shoes).

Have you read all the books by Rush Limbaugh and what’s his name—O Reilly? If not, are you somehow off-base for in any way questioning the views they express on their broadcast shows? Of course you aren’t. But I never said you were.
_________

Kathryn: I believe that you’ve skipped several steps in the chain of evidence.

“The quotes clearly show that this was a high-level group of people with access to highly sensitive intelligence information which turned out to be quite relevant.”

1. Those quotes say nothing about how high or low those people were—in fact, all we know, based on the quotes, is that Clarke chaired these meetings. Again, based on these quotes, we don’t know anything about who these people even were. They could have been my Aunt Matilda and your Aunt Hildegard (I’m sure they weren’t, okay—I’m just making a joke, but I hope you see my point).

2. Those quotes say nothing about whether or not these people had access to any intelligence at all—much less “highly sensitive” intelligence. I’m sure they had access to some intelligence, but again, none of this is in those quotes.

3. Those quotes say nothing about what was or wasn’t in that memo forwarded by the forum to the president after all their months of labor. We don’t know what was in it, much less whether it was relevant or not. Do you know? Perhaps you do, but again, it’s not in those quotes.

The biggest problem in discussing Clarke, I’m finding, is that his sympathizers don’t even care if he’s making sense. He says what they want, what need to believe from the bottom of their Bush-hating souls—and presto!—they believe it.

Martin,
I do consider reading this particular book improving myself so Stephen is not making me feel like a third grader which at my age would be fun. I do find it interesting that the tactics of the Bush administration work so well on you. It is their very important agenda to keep you in particular from wanting to read this book.

Clarke is a man who has worked for four different Presidents, spanning twenty years of his career. Have you voted for that long in your lifetime? He has not spent a lot of time lying in that career no matter what you think of career experts who work for our government, that should be obvious to you. Presidents do not keep people who misinform them on as front line advisors. Only Bush has ignored his advice in all of that time, that ought to tell you something.

The truth about your agenda is only known to you but the truth about the Bush agenda in regard to Clarke is obvious, they want their base to ignore him. Their projection of Condi Rice as their expert to foil the efforts of Clarke is interesting. He is trying to open a debate about the Bush Administration’s handling of terrorism before and after 9/11, she is trying to make out that he is a liar. His statements in the book which I have finished now are moderate but clear. He fears the Bush approach to terrorism which is based on State sponsored Terrorism at its core is erroneous. He admits to mistakes in regard to 9/11 and other terrorist efforts. Condi can only sing hail to the chief while trying to explain why they did nothing before 9/11 and made Saddam the point of the War on Terror(ism) thereafter.

Please require yourself to read the book before you damn it. If you limited yourself to criticizing his testimony that would be one thing but you have damned his political agenda without exploring a massive body of information available to you. If you want to be taken seriously as a writer one thing is clear, know your subject. If you even heard of Richard Clarke before the release of the book it would be interesting but tell me if I am wrong, you had not. You have taken the release of the book as an opportunity to define this man and his contribution to this nation. You have done that in the harshest terms possible without reading his work. Now you want me and others to consider your input as serious in regard to this man? Don’t hold your breath. I would rather follow you into combat without a weapon or a clear statement of an objective. That would kill me, without a doubt but it would not compromise my political duty to this nation, which is to question my leaders and trust my own judgement.

I have finished the book and I think it is worth reading if you care to find the truth. Truth is a synthesis of opposing views more often than not. I read one right wing tome for every left wing one I test. I only finish some of each, the rest are not worth the time. I do not care if you wind up agreeing with Clarke, if you read his book you will have some new information to put into your synthesis of reality. That is what Condi and Bush are trying to prevent.
Henri

Thanks for your response, Henri.

I haven’t damned the book (as an issue apart from those portions of it which are otherwise on the public record), nor do I assume that I will suddenly know the truth if I read it. Yes, if such an admission is important, I base my criticisms of Clarke not on the book but on his very widely circulated public statements—but they reflect what’s in the book, no? Why should I or anyone believe that the web of inconsistencies, evasions and outright revisionist-history that we’ve seen from Clarke in public will be somehow burned away like a morning mist in his book—a place where he’s the only one talking, and without rebuttal from the other side? I haven’t read Mein Kampf either (and no—I’m not comparing Clarke to Hitler), but I don’t need to in order to form an impression of the man and his arguements beyond what he’d choose to selectively offer in his own words. Neither have I read George Bush’s “book” or John Kerry’s “book.” These are public figures with readily available records of both their words and actions.

They were allowed to put a piece of paper in the president’s inbox—wow, now that is in the loop!

Haha! That’s pretty good, Martin. You make it sound like the president was out of the loop!

I’m trying to decide which scenario is scarier. :)

To Blue:

At that point, there was no knowledge of the form the threat would take, whether it would be foreign or domestic. Clarke, more or less, was trying to do his job. Before 9/11 he a career civil servant, and a team player. It took the whole Iraq thing, I think, to get him to the point where he was willing to blow the lid off the administration.

As for scale, he did know. Blowing up entire buildings, as in the Kenya and Tanzania Bombings, a plot to blow up a LNG(Liquified Natural Gas) freighter in Boston Harbor, which would have destroyed much of Downtown Boston, and of course the plot to use liquid explosives to destroy several jetliners over the pacific. Oh yes, and that attempt on LAX on the millenium.

As for the passenger list, he was astonished to find those names, because by all rights, those men should have been hurried away to small room under arrest, had they shown up at the ticket counter. They were on a terrorist watchlist, for heaven’s sake.

The whole thing screamed Al Quaeda: Synchronicity, scale, and very disciplined, well planned execution of the plan. I knew it was Al Quaeda the moment the second plane hit. No other terrorist organization I knew of had done anything of that kind. Only they fit the bill.

As for the book, read it a chapter at a time if you have to, but read it. Half the stuff I’ve told you about is from that book.

At that point, there was no knowledge of the form the threat would take, whether it would be foreign or domestic. Clarke, more or less, was trying to do his job.

The core of Clarke’s criticism is that Bush and his national security team refused to heed repeated warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was preparing a megaterrorist operation. Clarke told “60 Minutes” that the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, was “saying to the president — because he briefed him every morning — a major Al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August” of 2001.

Bush refused to mobilize his administration against the threat, Clarke charged.
-Boston Globe Editorial

SD, looks like he is confused as to which one it was:
1. According to you via his book, he wasn’t sure
2. According to Clarke on 60 Minutes, Bush didn’t do anything.
3. According to Clarke to the Panel, we couldn’t have prevented 9/11.

How can you do something about anything that you are not sure? Did he expect Bush to come out on National TV and say “Howdy folks, don’t go to work the big bad terrorists are going to come and kills us.” Did he expect Bush to send the entire nation is a paranoiac frenzy? OK, may be that is too drastic. Did he expect Bush to send some cruise missiles blow a few things up in Afghanistan similar to his predecessor?

SD, would you agree that his 60 Minutes interview and his Panel testimony reached a much large audience than his book ever will? His 60 Minutes interview was to create a shock value for his upcoming book, but to me it was Monday Morning QuarterBacking. I just think he is flip-flopping way too much for me to think that he is credible.

Before 9/11 he a career civil servant, and a team player. It took the whole Iraq thing, I think, to get him to the point where he was willing to blow the lid off the administration.

So in a hypothetical scenario had Bush never decided to go to Iraq then we wouldn’t have said anything about the “incompetence of the current administration”? He would have let Bush make 9/11 his campaign’s #1 agenda knowing full well that the future of this country will be at risk if Bush was re-elected?
I reiterate:

Was it not his moral duty to humanity to speak out against the oversights of the Bush administration before and immediately after 9/11?

It was a matter of life and death for many. Team chemistry and career civil service be damned.

Blue-

Why was he astonished to discover Al Queada terrorists on that list? If they were in this country of ours, shouldn’t he have known some how?

It would have been great if he had known that, but hasn’t he said that he didn’t know that? From what I’ve heard Clarke say, there were people within the FBI who knew that those people were in the country, but Clarke did NOT know, and that’s a large part of what Clarke’s beef is. He has repeatedly said that if the President had required the daily meetings of the key players (the “battle stations” expression) as Clinton did prior to Y2K (when they knew terrorists were plotting), then that information could have been “shook loose,” and it could have been transmitted to the proper authorities so that at least we could have had any sort of chance of doing anything. I AM NOT SAYING THAT BUSH COULD HAVE PREVENTED 9-11. I am simply saying that this was one of Clarke’s exact points: more could have been done to “shake the trees” and get this exact sort of information to the places it needed to go.

Martin-

You really think that forum didn’t have access to “highly sensitive” information yet they arrived at those conclusions? Is that what you’re saying? Ok. We don’t have to describe specific evidence about those threats “highly sensitive.” We can call it “turkey” if that’s what you want to call it. That doesn’t change what it was.

How do we know that it was high level and in the loop? Because Rice has said that it was. This is really not your best point. Even the administration doesn’t take your position anymore, and I’m sure they know more about his role than you, me, or either of our Aunts.

Reasons TO believe Clarke have been more than adequately enumerated and expressed in these forums, so I’m not sure how you can still take the position that those of us who have actually supported our beliefs are more blindly following a convenient ideology than those of you who have not.

Martin

By all means, lets not limit it. I’m just saying you shouldn’t limit yourself to material outside of the book.

As for Limbaugh and O’Reilly, I might read them, but I don’t see point. These men have done nothing but propagandize for a living. I would rather read the work of somebody who’s actually had to make consequential decision, or short of that, a book about those people who have to make such decisions. Anyway, when I have had occasion to fact check pundits like them, I’ve found their evidence to be rather shoddy. So in terms of books that need to be read for a substantive debate, they’re not high on my list, and they shouldn’t be on yours. Do yourself a favor, if you haven’t already, and read the work of those you support.

Oh, by the way, “turgid” does not apply to Clarke’s writing style. I’ve read quite a number of thrillers, and he doesn’t do half bad.

As for those quotes (and what Clarke himself says), he was pretty high up. He was cleared high enough that George Tenet was sharing information with him on an almost daily basis. He was cleared high enough to brief Clinton, which he often did. Damn, he was cleared high enough to carry a gun in the White House! This guy was not some analyst locked away in Langley being fed stuff that was Need To Know. This was a guy cleared for stuff maybe five other people had access to.

Additionally, the memo that Clarke sent outlined the strategies Bush’s people put into play. What was in it, was complex, and much of it is classified. So it’s damn important and damn sensitive, whatever it was.

Clarke, I feel, gets the credit he does, because he is very good at making his case. He doesn’t just spout off some opinion, he says, things are this and this way, this and this happened, we found our selves in this and this situation-

Let me give you an example: he tells of how the US started getting positions and interests into the Middle East to knock the Soviets off balance. He talks of how helping the Mujaheddin to engineer the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan help give them the idea that what could be done to destroy one superpower, could be used against another. He lays out how we deployed, how misperceptions began, and how our policies inadvertantly got us where we are today. If nothing else it explains how we got to where we are today, and how Al Quaeda came to be, and came to be discovered.

This is what gives Clarke his credibility. He knows of what he speaks. He’s not anti-war, and he certainly had little love for Saddam and Iraq. He was not so partisan that he’d refuse a job with Bush, even though he didn’t vote for him. For the most part, he comes up as fairly conservative, and fairly hawkish. His criticism of Somalia and the first Iraq war wasn’t that they were done at all, but that they were taken to their logical conclusions. We didn’t destroy the targets we should have, he says. In Afghanistan, his complaints are similar. He gives Bush credit for choosing Afghanistan, but he says bush put in fewer soldiers there than there were cops in NYC, and that we didn’t quickly seal off Kabul and the other centers of authority so the leadership couldn’t escape.

Can you disagree with that? That more troops should have been on the ground, that we should have quickly encapsulated the Taliban and Al Quaeda leadership? They did use Clarke’s plan, but Clarke’s intitial plan was intended for a time in which we couldn’t have gone in. That was hardly the case after 9/11.

Kathryn—you’re moving the goalposts because playing “Gaelen’s Challenge” wasn’t the sure thing you thought it would be. I have no idea what intelligence that forum had access to—not even a teeny weeny clue. My point was that you’ve supplied some quotes and then gone on to say they contain all kinds of information which they obviously don’t—such as there being “high level” intelligence and certain conclusions reached by this forum (what conclusions did it reach?). I’m not saying that evidence for your positions isn’t out there—or even that you don’t have it. It’s just not in that quotes. In psychology it’s called projection—seeing whats not there because its something you want to believe. Respond to my list, the one above, if you like—after all, I responded to yours.

Stephen, if Clarke wants to say we should have had more troops in Afghanistan or used different military tactics, I have no problem with that. Maybe he’s right. I didn’t realize that Clarke outranks Tommy Franks, but okay, he’s entitled to his opinion. It’s not a difficult thing to concede. After all, wars are never executed flawlessly, and hindsight allows you to see all kinds of things you originally missed. It’s just the way things are. I’m not sure though why if Clarke says something which many others, including some Republicans are saying it’s news.

Martin-

Just because you’re running around the field looking for the ball doesn’t mean that I’ve moved the goalpost, but to help you reorient yourself, here is the goal: prove that Clarke was NOT in the loop.

If you don’t believe that those quotes are evidence, that’s fine, but then PROVE that he was NOT high level. I think that those quotes to go to that point, and others (including the administration) have made clear cases that he was.

So Gaelen’s challenge was and remains for you to PROVE that these claims are false. You don’t just get to say that the statements in the challenge seem false to you. You have to prove it or there is no reason for anyone to agree with you.

Also, Gaelen’s challenge had a lot more points than just the issue of “the loop.” So far, it has indeed proven to be quite a sure thing. You have yet to prove a single one of the claims wrong. You’re back to your “nuh-uh” argument, and you’ve picked one of he most difficult points on which to try to get away with that. Even the administration has said he was in the loop. Try moving on to a more realistic goal.

Indeed, Kathryn. The goalposts aren’t moving… they’re simply hard to hit, since Clarke’s statements are so clear and declarative. It makes rebutting his rebutals very difficult. I feel for people on the hard right, since Clarke’s record and directness makes him a very hard target. I guess that’s why the smears have worked so poorly at killing this story.

Stephen:

You asked me:

“Why do you support them. Why do you support Bush”.

Good question.

I agree with his philosophy of dealing with terrorism.

First of all, without casting blame I think the philosophy of Clinton’s eight years and Bushes eight months did not work.

Examples are:

1. Multiple UN resolutions going unenforced.
2. Terrorists feeling free to increase intensity of strikes, including the twin towers.
3. State sponsored “havens” such as afghanistan existing.

The world change on 9/11. In the post 9/11 world there are new rules that I support. Such as,

1. If the UN makes a resolution it will be enforced. All of the UN silliness of the nineties is over. Saddam did not comply with the UN and is now a prisoner.

2. State sponsored terrorism carries a consequence. Afghanistan is under new management.

3. If you commit a terrorist strike against the united states we are coming after you with troops if need be. The United States as killed or captured a great portion of Al Queda leadership and are hunting for more.

The key fear we should all have is the next increase in terror. We lost 3,000 on 9/11, a nuclear strike is something most of us will probably live to see. When, not if that happens we could loose 100 times the number lost on 9/11. I believe we have a better chance of saving these lives if we are on the offensive instead of “counter punching” the way we did in the nineties.

I am not critical of Clinton or early Bush, because we have blunt and clear new information since then. I support and believe if we are to survive as a democracy we need to take the action Bush is leading us on.

I am concerned that we do not destroy Democracy while trying to save it. We have to be balanced and thoughtful as a people as we fight this war.

I am disappointed at the level of debate on the national level from both sides. It seems to me we don’t have time for the cheap shoting. It tells me that as a society we are not comprehending what is at stake.

Craig

Craig, you claim to appreciate Bush’s post 9/11 policies. Do you think that Clinton’s, Gore’s, or Kerry’s policies towards terrorism would be different? In what ways would their policies be inferior to those of President Bush’s policies?

-Cf

Christopher:

If I might change your question just a bit. It is irrevalent what Clinton or Gore have done different because they didn’t have 9/11 happen on their watch. Gore is not a candidate and Clinton is bared from running again.

The issue I think is what Kerry would do going forward.

Kerry is comming off to me as a counter puncher. For instance the main theme of his campaign so far is coming off as “I am not George Bush”. I kinda new that already.

I think Kerry would wait until he had a consensus on the UN Security counsel before going forwards. If that were the case, the US would not have gone into Bosnia or Iraq. The UN may never vote to back up it’s own resolutions with force.

I don’t see Kerry as decisive enough for these times. He seems to lecture and wander. He seems to have a “theme of the day” approach to campaigning. The current “theme” is higher gas prices.

In the middle of a war, I would need to feel Bush didn’t have the backbone to finish what he had started. Let me put it this way. In the middle of a war, I would vote against Chamberlin and for Churchill, but not against Churchill and for Chamberlin. So far Kerry is sounding to me more like Chamberlin than Churchill.

Craig

craig (about Kerry)-
“The current “theme” is higher gas prices.”

Are you saying he wants higher gas prices? I could of sworn I saw him on t.v. this morning in California talking about how to lower gas prices. anyone else see that?

Martiniwitz:

Sorry for being confusing. Kerry is currently blaming Bush for the higher gas prices.

Craig

thanx for the clarifacation craig

The problem is, Al Quaeda does not operate like state-supported terrorist. It owes it’s allegiance to no country. Some countries, but the reality is that Al Quaeda is at heart a subversive organization, meant to tip the balance of power towards Islamic extremists. That is what Afghanistan is all about. The Taliban and Al Quaeda were not sponsor and sponsored, respectively, but instead a conspiracy of fellow travellers, some part of a government, some part of a terrorist organization. The lines between them were very blurry, if they existed at all.

Bush’s policy now has the liability of simply being a mutation of the state-sponsored terrorism theory, in which action against the states involved necessarily will put a stop to the organization. When we executed operation Sapphire, and outed Iranian intelligence agents, that put a quick stop to Iran-sponsored terrorism going after us. When we sent a cruise missile into the Iraqi intelligence building, Iraqi terrorism became a thing of the past.

But Al Quaeda is different, or at least is different now. It’s more distributed, tougher to destroy by simple attrition of the ranks.

Besides, Iraq was a distraction, and costly one at that. These wars are won on the faith of each side, the faith to carry on the fight.

John Ashcroft and the PATRIOT act have combined to create a situation where people are less inclined to pass tough new legislation that would actually do more harm to terrorist than civil liberties. Respect for the law is crucial in our nation’s security, and a cavalier attitude towards civil liberties will only interfere with that.

Bush and his foreign policy people have taken us into a battle that they say is part of the war on terror. But we have found no evidence to confirm the presence of terrorist, and no evidence of the WMDs. We risked and sacrificed much in order to invade Iraq, and did not find any terrorist training camps or safe havens, much less the weapons that were supposed to threaten us all. It is wishful thinking, in my opinion, to believe that we defied the UN and European powers for any great benefit.

Meanwhile, the men who did successfully attack us still walk free. Al Quaeda and the Taliban are regrouping. Do you not see where this particular liberal’s frustrations come from? I don’t want an administration so fixated on one vision of the world in their heads that they cannot see the reality of it outside of it.

We cannot fight a war without cost. If we continue to strike targets ineffectively or counterproductively in this way, we will end up exhausting our resources and our power before Al Quaeda or it’s comrades do theirs.

Unfortunately, Bush lacks the subtlety or the nuance of thought to be truly economical about how he fights this war. And the twisted irony of it will be that he may very well lead us down that garden path believing he’s after the right targets.

Craig,

How is Kerry like Chamberlain? I don’t understand your analogy one bit.

Germany was a impending threat to the peace and security of Europe. He was building a war machine greater than any that ever existed. People all over the world were debating what to do about the Nazi threat - many allied with them, many did not. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain, with strong popular support by the British electorate (yet with strong and vocal opposition by Churchill and others), chose to follow a policy of “appeasement” — as did almost every other country in the world, including, I might add, the United States. Soon, Germany invaded Poland, and Chamberlain immediately declared war on Germany. Soon after that, he was voted out of office in favor of Churchill, who had been advocating a very different and more aggressive foreign policy all along.

I’m not defending Chamberlain - his approach was dead wrong. I am just trying to paint a picture of the enormously complex geopolitical climate of the time. Why? Because I can’t see any resemblance whatsoever between the climate in 1939 and the climate today.

Lots of people have made this “Bush:Kerry::Churchill:Chamberlain” analogy, but I really don’t see it at all. Please explain it to me. Are you saying that Saddam is like Hitler, an imminent and deadly threat, capable of bringing the major powers of the world to their very knees? Is the World Trade Center attack supposed to be like Kristalnacht, the first symptom of a pending horrific holocaust? I don’t get it.

Note that the United States still did not declare war for almost two years after Britain did. Even after France was conquered and Britain was attacked, the United States sat on its hands. Was FDR an appeaser? Where does FDR fit into your analogy?

As far as I can tell, there is no precedent for what this President has done. Well, okay, maybe there are precedents in history of countries invading other countries with the claim that you are defending your own country… but in those cases, the invading countries have almost always turned out to be the bad guys.

-Cf

Christopher:

It isn’t a perfect analogy, but it is useful for discussion.

1. Both Hitler and Terrorism are a clear and overwelming threat to democracy. Hitler used armies. Terrorism has now discovered WMD. Their first WMD were Commercial Airliners. I believe it is only a matter of time if we do not kill them until they will use a nuclear weapon on the free world. I think they have the will and the money.

2. Both Hitler and Arab extremist are racially motivated. Hitler wanted to emiminate the Jews. Arab extremists want to eliminate Jews and Christians. (not day to day muslims, it’s the extreme wackos that I am speaking of).

3. Bush like Churchill understands the above and is taking the battle to them. The new leader in Spain actually wants to negotiate. (Like Chamberlin did).

4. The only option we have left is to kill them before they kill us, even if we have to go it alone like England did.

5. I don’t see this singularity of purpose in Kerry. Kerry seems to want to talk about it, and build consensus the way Chamberline did.

6. Watch France. France did something that was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo stupid lately. After 9/11 they are banning muslim headware on female students in school. Now isn’t that bright in this environment? They are inviting a terror strike over headware. That tells me that they don’t get it at all.

Did this help at all??

Craig

Craig-

I completely disagree with your assessment of Kerry here. I am absolutely in agreement that we need to take bold action to stop terrorism, however, I am not in favor of blind action. I think that attacking Afghanistan was good, and I think just about anyone who was President at the time of 9-11 would have done that. However, I have a HUGE problem with the war in Iraq. Perhaps a war there was inevitable, however, I think it was completely appropriate to allow the weapons inspectors to do their jobs first, to build a legitimate coalition first, and to go to war only as an absolute last resort. Given that Iraq was a seperate issue from the war on terrorism, these are not unreasonable things to wait for. It’s not sitting idly by while the terrorists run amok. It’s having some sense of global responsibility while still addressing the real threats of terrorism.

So, while I agree with you that Bush did a good thing by going to war in Afghanistan, he could have done even BETTER by focusing on that war more intensely and not getting side-tracked by an unnecessary and irresponsible war in Iraq.

And this is part of the reason that I support John Kerry for President: I that the Iraq war was a mistake, and I don’t think John Kerry would make such a mistake. I think he would use the military when appropriate, and I believe that his definition of “appropriate” is much more similar to mine than Bush’s definition. If you feel that the Iraq war was appropriate and good, then I don’t think that we will agree on this one, but hopefully you can see that those of us who completely believe in fighting terrorism aggressively but also find the Iraq war to be a horrible mistake which ultimately undermines that war, would think that Bush is currently NOT handling the war on terror well at all.

Katheryn:

Thank you for your post. We obviously disagree over the war in Iraq. I think the war corrected a great wrong in that the world body was unwilling to back up it’s own resolutions. I am not sure the UN is capable of being meaningful in the post 9/11 world. Clinton was forced to go around them in Bosnia and Bush in Iraq. There are so many what if’s. Do you think Kerry could do what Clinton and Bush were unable to do? Do you think we can risk that??

Craig

Craig-

Well, I think that Iraq can’t be used to gage the UN’s response to post 9-11 issues, because (even though we invaded Iraq after 9-11), the Iraq war was unrelated to 9-11. We tried very hard to connect it, but so far, we have failed. No weapons of mass destruction. No Al-Qaida. None of these things were in Iraq, so I think that the UN’s response to that war was appropriately conservative (not in the political sense of the word). Perhaps you are right that the UN is incapable of being meaningful these days even when there is a true terrorism issue on the table, and in such a case, we certainly CAN act independently, but that doesn’t mean that we SHOULD do so under all circumstances. I don’t believe that Iraq was a circumstance where we should have circumvented the UN. We had time there. There was no imminent threat from them.

I think that Kerry could restore the image of this country in the rest of the world by being less arrogant in his foreign policy than Bush has been. I think he would have no trouble going to war if it was necessary, and if the UN would not cooperate with a war which we clearly needed to fight, I think Kerry would have no trouble acting alone. I certainly don’t think he’s afraid of using our military, but I think he’s just careful enough to be responsible while still being completely effective. Of course, this has yet to be tested, but when I compare someone with a high score on the pre-test to someone who has horribly failed the real test, I choose the guy who looks promising and hasn’t already shown to be a failure. Obviously all of this depends upon my view of the Iraq war, but given that view, I think this follows.

I think that Kerry could restore the image of this country in the rest of the world by being less arrogant in his foreign policy than Bush has been.

What image? Call me arrogant but I could care less what the corruptionishts of the Food-For-Oil program think about our image.

Katheryn:

Yes your logic flows from what you believe. You believe we were wrong to go into Iraq and so you don’t trust Bush to lead us forward in the war on terrorism.

I believe the war has been a great success because I probably have a different view of terrorism and of Iraq that you do. I think that there are many many terror groups. Terror is more of a belief system than specific people. If we wipe out Al Qaida, another organization will simply take it’s place.

9/11 is a sort of 4 minute mile. Once it has been achieved current and future terror groups will use this to measure themselves and “improve upon”. It is this new belief system that needs to be attacked and defeated. What was defeated in Iraq was our corporate 90’s mindset. I truely do say this in a non blaming fashion. Iraq was a terrible failure form the first gulf war. Basically the world community said, “go ahead and thumb your nose at the world community. Go ahead and stand up to them. They will back down.” That legacy of the 90’s has been shattered. Truely evil people cannot possibly believe anymore that if they confront the world community they can count on it backing down. In otherwords we sent a message that puts doubt in their mind.

I also don’t see and Iraqi war. I see a battle. One battle in a long long war. One clear message sent. Kadafy (sorry about the spelling) who himself helped blow an airliner out of the sky has gotten the message. If Saddam would have done what Kadafy has done there wouldn’t have been a war/battle in Iraq. However without Iraq, Kadafy (arguable a terrorist) would of had no reason to change his ways.

I do hope this debate which is so important to our future can be done in more thoughtful than I have seen. This is new ground for civilization. We have to make sure and not destroy democracy trying to save it. That will take all of our best heads.

Craig

Excellent points, Craig. Many of us who don’t agree with everything Bush stands for have come to realize the tremendous and vital importance of reelecting him and his historic importance. We know that it would be disasterous to send a message to Baathist insurgents, Al Qaida, the Taliban, the appeasing populations of Europe who strike moral postures on one side while doing business with tyrants on the other, that we free citizens have repudiated what Bush represents—America’s unambiguos and steadfast determination against tyranny and terror. As a gay, socially liberal (though economically conservative) pro-choice individual who might in other circumstances consider a Democrat, I’ll never cast a vote in 04 that might give aid and comfort to the enemy. If on Nov 3rd I have to watch burka-clad women ululating in Arab cities, brainwashed students pouring out of the madrassas to burn American flags and dance around hange effigies of their hated enemy George Bush, I want to know that I had no part in it, that my moment of cowardice in the voting booth didn’t spell this defeat.

I hear Republicans talk about the UN as if it were an entity that had nothing to do with the United States. As if they expect “the UN” to do stuff. As if “the UN” should enforce it’s resolutions.

The UN was created by the United States to further its global policy after World War II. It is nothing if not led by the United States.

Truman knew how to lead the UN through the Korean war, most US presidents were able make use of it since then. Even Bush’s father made the UN sit up and bark.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the UN. It’s biggest problem is that President George W. Bush does not know how to effectively lead the organization that his predecessors created.

Martin, we had a better case for dealing with other nations than Iraq. I mean, why not try Lebanon and Syria first? We know terrorists are camped out there. We know Iran supports terrorism, especially against Isreal. We know that between the day we invaded Iraq and the day President Clinton sent cruise missiles into Iraq intelligence headquarters, Iraq had ceased its terrorist activities.

Bush’s language still indicates that he rates the threat of rogue nations higher than the threat of international terrorism, or that he believe the Rogue nations are the source of that threat, rather than supporting players as is actually the case. He’s thinking fifteen years behind the curve, and that in my opinion does not constitute sound leadership.

Martin:

Thank you for your post. You make a compelling case as to why this ol country is worth defending. I’m a conservative white christian. It’s interesting how war makes for “strange bedfellows”.

And interesting debate is how to preserve our democracy while defeating terrorism. I don’t want either of us to loose our right to privacy in this battle.

All the best,

CH

P.S. (I’m switching to another thread, see ya there)

I’m not saying that Iraq was great the way it was and that nothing (even militarily) would have needed to happen there at all ever.

I have a huge problem with the timing of the war. It was absolutely unneccessary to fight that war at that time, and doing so undermined our ability to fight effectively in Afghanistan.

The President manipulated the Congress into trusting him to be responsible, and then he immediately ran into Iraq with his guns blazing yelling about WMD.

I have no respect for the way the President has handled his foreign policy decisions. He has been foolish and arrogant, and Americans have lost their lives as a result of his blunders.

Again, it’s the WAY in which we conduced this war in Iraq that is the problem. We went in without an exit strategy, it detracted from critical progress in Afghanistan, and we we went in prematurely, and there was no need for us to upset the rest of the world the way we have, because there was no immient threat.

So I cannot vote to reelect someone who has been such an abysmal failure in these respects. He hasn’t earned a second term. He deserves to be fired.

Kathryn:

Thank you for your response. I will respond to you under

“Bush Administration’s top Focus before 9/11 wansn’t on terrorism”

Hope that is ok,

Craig