Richard Clarke

[CMontyBurns]

Has anyone been paying attention to the hearings.... here is an article from Slate.... pretty good read....

Richard Clarke KOs the Bushies-
The ex-terrorism official dazzles at the 9/11 commission hearings. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2097750/)

[LilPuppy]

Yeah , you gotta to love the standard reply of "Why didn't he say something then". Well of course if any Government Official criticizes their boss in public no less would be fired immediately.......

[Chalybos]

Not a shocker here.

[Dawg]

I've been following it. Clarke certainly seems to have considered the ramifications of his expose. He has a reasoned and intelligent answer for every question. His retort to Thompson is classic. He handled every attack and insinuation that was thrown at him during the hearing perfectly. The actions of the committee members wipes away any facade of impartiality that it once had. It is now clear that while some of the senators my be earnestly digging for the truth, there are at least a few that are trying to throw a blanket over the hole.

Dawg

[Crazy Hobbit]

What a concept forgiveness! Next thing you know it will be all over Time & Newsweek and all the celeb gossip shows as the "in" thing to do the really cool people will call it grace :roll:

8)

[laters]

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/12/photos/wor-hotel.jpg
I find it funny that they're keeping those tiles so well maintained. :P

About Clarke's revelations, I have mixed feelings. To be honest I'm p.o. at the fact that Rice didn't testify, and the only excuse the Whitehouse offered was that it would infringe on her "executive privileges." What a load of crap! It seems as though they are more concerned about dodging blames than anything else at this point. On the other hand, Clarke's 'performance' in front of the committee may have been convincing, but to me that just means that he prepared for it well. Overall, I feel that I can't trust any of the government officials no matter which side of this issue they are on. Then again, what's new, eh?

[SauerKraut]

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/12/photos/wor-hotel.jpg
I find it funny that they're keeping those tiles so well maintained. :P



hehe, those tiles aren't there anymore, but even so, it IS a 5 star luxury hotel. That place was a palace for guests.

[DrGreen]

Yeah I don't get Rice's "Executive Privilege"
She's the security advisor, not the President.
It's gotta be something like she could testify here,
but if she does and then 3 months, 1 year, 5 years down the line she testifies under oath again and every answer doesn't jive the same,
she'll get slapped with a purgery charge.
Everybody lies, right?
Maybe some don't do it as well as others.
Or just can't tap dance around questions they're given like Rummy.
Like i said I don't know.
but I've been listening.

& I love Richard Clark,
He always puts on those great "Rockin New Years Eve" specials. I was a big American Bandstand fan too. Looks great for his age, uh? u think he's had plastic surgery.:P

[Geri_Arctic]

snip*

On the other hand, Clarke's 'performance' in front of the committee may have been convincing, but to me that just means that he prepared for it well. Overall, I feel that I can't trust any of the government officials no matter which side of this issue they are on. Then again, what's new, eh?

Well prepared or confident that he has nothing to hide. It's easy to tell the truth (assuming he's doing so).

[Chairman_Kaga]

snip*

On the other hand, Clarke's 'performance' in front of the committee may have been convincing, but to me that just means that he prepared for it well. Overall, I feel that I can't trust any of the government officials no matter which side of this issue they are on. Then again, what's new, eh?

Well prepared or confident that he has nothing to hide. It's easy to tell the truth (assuming he's doing so).
If he's telling the truth now, explain his comments defending the administration's actions shortly after 9/11 and the following investigation.

Only now that he has a book to sell is he offering up "dirt" on the white house's ineptitude. While he was employed by the white house, he defended the actions.

I don't buy 100% of either side's story in this whole deal.

[Geri_Arctic]

snip*

On the other hand, Clarke's 'performance' in front of the committee may have been convincing, but to me that just means that he prepared for it well. Overall, I feel that I can't trust any of the government officials no matter which side of this issue they are on. Then again, what's new, eh?

Well prepared or confident that he has nothing to hide. It's easy to tell the truth (assuming he's doing so).
If he's telling the truth now, explain his comments defending the administration's actions shortly after 9/11 and the following investigation.

Only now that he has a book to sell is he offering up "dirt" on the white house's ineptitude. While he was employed by the white house, he defended the actions.

I don't buy 100% of either side's story in this whole deal.

No way you can.

I don't fully trust anyone in politics or connected with the government. Too many conflicting motives.

But Monty's article does (briefly, I'm not saying reliably either) touch upon his comments while he was employed by the administration and why they differed from his book.

[LilPuppy]

snip*

On the other hand, Clarke's 'performance' in front of the committee may have been convincing, but to me that just means that he prepared for it well. Overall, I feel that I can't trust any of the government officials no matter which side of this issue they are on. Then again, what's new, eh?

Well prepared or confident that he has nothing to hide. It's easy to tell the truth (assuming he's doing so).
If he's telling the truth now, explain his comments defending the administration's actions shortly after 9/11 and the following investigation.

Only now that he has a book to sell is he offering up "dirt" on the white house's ineptitude. While he was employed by the white house, he defended the actions.

I don't buy 100% of either side's story in this whole deal.


That answer my friend is what I said earlier "criticize your boss in public you get fired"

[2112]

Clark has an agenda...don't you ever doubt that for a single minute...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37744
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/24/123918.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/911.commission/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

That is all...flame away...

[Chairman_Kaga]

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do;jsessionid=aY6G2yVU2jq7?from=se arch&item_id=399308

I think our entire governmental system is to blame. It's more based on finger pointing at this point than it is based on doing the best for the country. <sigh>


Politician #1:
<to politician #2>You suck!
Politician #2:
<rhetort>Yeah, but you suck more!
Citizen(s):
But what about me?
Politician #1:
Politician #2 will make your life hell.
Politician#2:
But he'll make it even worse.
Citizen(s):
So where does that leave me?
<in unison>
Who cares? vote for me!


Pretty much what our system has degraded into. :( It's very akin to the roman "aristocracy" during the height of their reign (of course they were assasinated to get them out of power, no voting, but...). So fat and so pompous that they don't even realize they've lost touch with reality. "Hmmm, but maybe if I build a cool coliseum for sports they'll love me."

It's to the point that in 90% of elections I take part in, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils instead of voting for someone I think would be good at the job. It really saddens me.


Founding fathers must be turning in their graves about now.

[DrGreen]

Clark has an agenda...don't you ever doubt that for a single minute...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37744
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/24/123918.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/911.commission/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

That is all...flame away...

& the current administration does not?

Everybody’s has their own agenda. Before you pick a candidate to vote for or file into your parties' line, ask yourself, “What is this person's motive for wanting to lead the country" Their "Motis Operandi". "Is that agenda in the interest of the country or their own personal gain?”
The part of this that concerns me the most isn't the constant shuffle of blame and finger pointing (while that is disturbing) but the fact that it takes so long for a presidency to get itself together after being electing. During the campaigns, politicians are concerned with winning the election not building their cabinets and actually leading the country. It took 7 months for Rumsfield to get a deputy. It is not just the current administration, this problem has been going on for some time. However, in these times the difficulty that poses with such dramatic events occurring almost daily is far greater that it has been in the past. If a new administration takes the reigns after an election that new presidency has to be ready to go shortly after taking the oath. Otherwise that vacuum will continue to catch us not looking.
The current administration would like to claim that intelligence failures from past administrations are just as responsible for the lapse if not more so than the current because 9/11 only happened 8 months into their tenure. But if the economy was to surge in that same time or anything else positive was to happen, they are quick to take credit for it because it happened on their watch.
Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk that read "The buck stops here" I wonder if that message has appeared on the desk of any more recent presidents. or if it read "The buck stops with that guy" with arrows pointing in every direction of the compass except to the guy behind the desk. These guys think they're infallible & they’re not. THey're human and they make mistakes & they won't admit it. While no explanation will be good enough & it might not win an election I would gain a lot of respect to hear even 1 of them admit that they messed up or were just wrong.
…But then Hell might freeze over.

[Crazy Hobbit]

C. Rice did testify, however, it was behind closed doors in front of the panel. Every person that testified publically like Powell, Clarke etc also gave more extensive testimonies behind closed doors.

The Public testimonies were not the end all/hear all accounts given by those witnesses. There is alot of which we don't know yet that has gone on behind closed doors.

So its not a matter of whether Rice testifies or not, its why did she not do so publically?

Once the full report is laid out then it will really be interesting to see what comes out.

These hearing are only the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

[Chairman_Kaga]

C. Rice did testify, however, it was behind closed doors in front of the panel. Every person that testified publically like Powell, Clarke etc also gave more extensive testimonies behind closed doors.

So its not a matter of whether Rice testifies or not, its why did she not do so publically?
Just in case priveleged information was accidentally spewed forth is one reason. Hate to have a slip up like that. The public as a whole SHOULD NOT have all information. That would only serve the "bad guys".

Does policy like this get abused? Hell yes. But where do you draw the line? Condi and others are privy to lots of confidential "not for general release" information. The wrong questions and a "I cannot say at this time" answer, could cost lives. As long as behind closed doors the right questions are being asked and the true answers given, I have no problem with that.

[Dawg]

C. Rice did testify, however, it was behind closed doors in front of the panel. Every person that testified publically like Powell, Clarke etc also gave more extensive testimonies behind closed doors.

So its not a matter of whether Rice testifies or not, its why did she not do so publically?
Just in case priveleged information was accidentally spewed forth is one reason. Hate to have a slip up like that. The public as a whole SHOULD NOT have all information. That would only serve the "bad guys". (snip)
I would note that this is NOT the reason profered by the administration for her testifying in private. They cite executive privilege, not national security - the same executive privilege that Cheney has invoked to protect the energy policy meetings from public view. Since Clarke testified publicly, if Rice wants to molify the effects of his testimony she will have to respond in public as well. The behind-closed-doors testimony will not have a significant effect on the electorate. And make no mistake, that is why the White House is responding so vehemently to Clarke's accusations -- they are concerned about its effect on the electorate.

I don't really care if Clarke has an agenda - he is providing us, the voters, with an inside view of the Bush administration - something that the White House clearly does not want us to have. Consider this.. some guy steals your car. His girlfriend gets POed at him for not taking out the garbage and she turns him into the police for the theft of your car. She has an agenda but that doesn't mean her info isn't valuable.

Dawg

[Chalybos]

C. Rice did testify, however, it was behind closed doors in front of the panel. Every person that testified publically like Powell, Clarke etc also gave more extensive testimonies behind closed doors.

So its not a matter of whether Rice testifies or not, its why did she not do so publically?
Just in case priveleged information was accidentally spewed forth is one reason. Hate to have a slip up like that. The public as a whole SHOULD NOT have all information. That would only serve the "bad guys". (snip)
I would note that this is NOT the reason profered by the administration for her testifying in private. They cite executive privilege, not national security - the same executive privilege that Cheney has invoked to protect the energy policy meetings from public view. Since Clarke testified publicly, if Rice wants to molify the effects of his testimony she will have to respond in public as well. The behind-closed-doors testimony will not have a significant effect on the electorate. And make no mistake, that is why the White House is responding so vehemently to Clarke's accusations -- they are concerned about its effect on the electorate.

I don't really care if Clarke has an agenda - he is providing us, the voters, with an inside view of the Bush administration - something that the White House clearly does not want us to have. Consider this.. some guy steals your car. His girlfriend gets POed at him for not taking out the garbage and she turns him into the police for the theft of your car. She has an agenda but that doesn't mean her info isn't valuable.

Dawg
Very good example, Dawg. I seriously doubt that there's any reason for her not to testify, except for the fact that it would make a bad situation worse for them.

[Chairman_Kaga]

C. Rice did testify, however, it was behind closed doors in front of the panel. Every person that testified publically like Powell, Clarke etc also gave more extensive testimonies behind closed doors.

So its not a matter of whether Rice testifies or not, its why did she not do so publically?
Just in case priveleged information was accidentally spewed forth is one reason. Hate to have a slip up like that. The public as a whole SHOULD NOT have all information. That would only serve the "bad guys". (snip)
I would note that this is NOT the reason profered by the administration for her testifying in private. They cite executive privilege, not national security - the same executive privilege that Cheney has invoked to protect the energy policy meetings from public view. Since Clarke testified publicly, if Rice wants to molify the effects of his testimony she will have to respond in public as well. The behind-closed-doors testimony will not have a significant effect on the electorate. And make no mistake, that is why the White House is responding so vehemently to Clarke's accusations -- they are concerned about its effect on the electorate.

I don't really care if Clarke has an agenda - he is providing us, the voters, with an inside view of the Bush administration - something that the White House clearly does not want us to have. Consider this.. some guy steals your car. His girlfriend gets POed at him for not taking out the garbage and she turns him into the police for the theft of your car. She has an agenda but that doesn't mean her info isn't valuable.

Dawg
Yes, but a person with an agenda has a tendancy to skew the facts to fit their agenda. A book that says "administration is doing great" is not going to sell nearly as well as one that says "the administration is lying to you and I'm going to tell you the truth".

I would dare to bet that the truth lies somewhere between what each side is telling us.

[AnalogKid]

C. Rice did testify, however, it was behind closed doors in front of the panel. Every person that testified publically like Powell, Clarke etc also gave more extensive testimonies behind closed doors.

So its not a matter of whether Rice testifies or not, its why did she not do so publically?
Just in case priveleged information was accidentally spewed forth is one reason. Hate to have a slip up like that. The public as a whole SHOULD NOT have all information. That would only serve the "bad guys". (snip)
I would note that this is NOT the reason profered by the administration for her testifying in private. They cite executive privilege, not national security - the same executive privilege that Cheney has invoked to protect the energy policy meetings from public view. Since Clarke testified publicly, if Rice wants to molify the effects of his testimony she will have to respond in public as well. The behind-closed-doors testimony will not have a significant effect on the electorate. And make no mistake, that is why the White House is responding so vehemently to Clarke's accusations -- they are concerned about its effect on the electorate.

I don't really care if Clarke has an agenda - he is providing us, the voters, with an inside view of the Bush administration - something that the White House clearly does not want us to have. Consider this.. some guy steals your car. His girlfriend gets POed at him for not taking out the garbage and she turns him into the police for the theft of your car. She has an agenda but that doesn't mean her info isn't valuable.

Dawg
Yes, but a person with an agenda has a tendancy to skew the facts to fit their agenda. A book that says "administration is doing great" is not going to sell nearly as well as one that says "the administration is lying to you and I'm going to tell you the truth".

I would dare to bet that the truth lies somewhere between what each side is telling us.

I don't know, Hannity and Coulter seem to be doing pretty well hawking their wares.

And Clarke isn't the first person to bring up GWB's Iraq fetish.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/timep.saddam.tm/

[laters]

snip*

On the other hand, Clarke's 'performance' in front of the committee may have been convincing, but to me that just means that he prepared for it well. Overall, I feel that I can't trust any of the government officials no matter which side of this issue they are on. Then again, what's new, eh?

Well prepared or confident that he has nothing to hide. It's easy to tell the truth (assuming he's doing so).
I can completely agree with you there. However, the reason I don't trust our politicians is not because I feel they fail to tell the truth, but because their concept of truth is different than mine. I guess I'll just leave it at that, since the rest of what I wanted to say and tons more thoughts that my humble mind couldn't conceive were touched upon by people who are obviously more educated and cool-headed on the issue. I've always found this place to be a great source of education for myself, and for that I thank you guys. It sucks to know that I still have a long way to go, but it's also good to know that I realize it. Anyway... Carry on.

[Vygramul]

Well, I saw Clarke's interview on Meet the Press sunday followed by the McLaughlin Group's discussion on him. Clarke's an eloquent speaker who has well-defended arguments. I detected much less spin than usual coming from him. That being said, a few things he said did seem a little naive in part because he seems to be surprised that he, a Clinton appointee, didn't have the same access in a Republican administration.

Anyway, I think that, in the end, Bush was seriously hurt by Clarke's public comments. As the public, we should be aware that given the spectrum of opinions and number of people who work for the executive branch, it should come as no surprise that someone came reasonably close to predicting the problems and wasn't listened to. Had things turned out differently, odds are we would see a different person saying how he had predicted it and was ignored. The truth is that, for many of the same reasons that the Pearl Harbor INEVITABLE intelligence failure occurred so did the 9/11.

But Clarke also says a few interesting things about Iraq that are worth considering. With WMD being yet to be found, and increasingly unlikely to have existed, one should be concerned with the intelligence failure. It would not be a bad precedent to set to hold the president responsible for such failures in order to prevent an abuse of plausible deniability with regards to intelligence.

I could go on, but I'm sure most of you have stopped reading by now.

[LilPuppy]

I could go on, but I'm sure most of you have stopped reading by now.



Uh! pardon!......j/k...


Presidential responsibility , kind of a oxymoron.....nice thought but the fear of punishment (this will be the arguement) will keep qualified and potential good leaders from running for public office...but without it basically gives them a license to try whatever and the only reprecussion is not being re-elected... :|

Ah is the quandry of democracy..

[Dawg]

Well stated Vyg..

Much of the media seemed to be focusing on the issue of pre-9/11 intelligence but it seems to me that the more damning testimony that Clarke has given has to do with Iraq. Mainly that by focusing on Iraq, the administration became distracted from the war on terrorism and opportunities to cripple al Queda and perhaps even capture/kill bin Laden himself have been lost.

Dawg

[SauerKraut]

I watched Colin Powell in an interview on Sunday morning (forgot which news program) and I tend to believe him over Clarke. He was referencing his first meetings as Secretary of State with Clarke...which was his first meeting AS Sec. of State. He said that Clarke and his adjutants were indeed giving them information on Al Qaeda before the attacks and that everyone in the Bush Administration was well aware of the terror threat level of Al Qaeda. He said that Clarke's statement of "nothing was being done" or "things overlooked" or whatever that Clarke said was preposterous. He said Clarke did indeed do his job well and that the administration took his advice and acted on it. He said there was no way in knowing how they were going to attack and that they couldn't have stopped it without some kind of precedent attack (like what we have now with airport security). He said the problem with terrorists is that you never know how or when exactly they will strike and it's very difficult to stop such a well planned attack when there is no precedental, or similar, attack like it in the past. There is just no way to read the mastermind's mind. They're sneaky bastidges.

I agree with Powell. I am a bit biased though, as I really like Powell and think he's a spot on Sec. of State. If he ran for president I think I would vote for him. Then again, if it was possible for Henry Kissenger to run for president, I would have voted for him too, that is, if I could vote in this country.

*preparing to get flamed.

[LilPuppy]

You can't vote there?? Of course your paycheque has no income tax taken off , since you have no say on who gets to spend it correct? I don't know how long you've been there but you pay taxes, reside there , must abide by there laws and do so yet have no say on who and how your tax dollars are spend...I'll stand with you here buddy..Whatta crock!! Until SK has the right to vote we should boycott all American products!!

Okay but whats really important!! Can you vote for "American Idol" if not Sauer we may have to plan for an extraction and a re-location to Canada as long as you sign a Liberal party card as most new immigrants here do and have everything just slide ride through as smooth as ice... :D

[SauerKraut]

You can't vote there?? Of course your paycheque has no income tax taken off , since you have no say on who gets to spend it correct? I don't know how long you've been there but you pay taxes, reside there , must abide by there laws and do so yet have no say on who and how your tax dollars are spend...I'll stand with you here buddy..Whatta crock!! Until SK has the right to vote we should boycott all American products!!

Okay but whats really important!! Can you vote for "American Idol" if not Sauer we may have to plan for an extraction and a re-location to Canada as long as you sign a Liberal party card as most new immigrants here do and have everything just slide ride through as smooth as ice... :D


ROFLMAO! I'll be a citizen soon enough. I think. I have to apply before the May 15 deadline, but I see no problem with my being naturalized. I've got government background checks up the wazoo. It should be fast and painless.

[Vygramul]

re-location to Canada as long as you sign a Liberal party card as most new immigrants here do and have everything just slide ride through as smooth as ice... :D

A policy with a low decision turn-around time is easy to maintain when the demand is low.

[Vygramul]

I tend to believe [Colin Powell] over Clarke. He was referencing his first meetings as Secretary of State with Clarke...which was his first meeting AS Sec. of State. He said that Clarke and his adjutants were indeed giving them information on Al Qaeda before the attacks and that everyone in the Bush Administration was well aware of the terror threat level of Al Qaeda. He said that Clarke's statement of "nothing was being done" or "things overlooked" or whatever that Clarke said was preposterous.

This is part of Clarke's naivete. Clarke assumes, being head of counter-terrorism, that not being at the meetings means nothing was done.


He said the problem with terrorists is that you never know how or when exactly they will strike and it's very difficult to stop such a well planned attack when there is no precedental, or similar, attack like it in the past. There is just no way to read the mastermind's mind. They're sneaky bastidges.

Which is the point behind the, "intelligence failure," of Pearl Harbor. Sure, you can point to quite a few things that the US was told that should have made us aware of the Japanese attack. But if you look at all the other EQUALLY credible warnings it becomes impossible to respond to all of them. The same is especially true about 9/11. You have to look at how many credible threats the FBI had against other important targets.

[Dawg]

I honestly do not think that 9/11 was preventable. Frankly, its quite repeatable. There really isn't much you can do to prevent terror attacks other than stumble upon them or hope the terrorists blunder out into the open on their own. The very freedoms that make this country great are the same avenues that the terrorists can exploit to further their ends. Unless we are willing to give up our freedoms, and I, for one, am not, then we are going to have to accept the potential for more terror attacks against our homeland.

There is hope, however. Consider the 'suicide' bomber who turned up in Israel and didn't want to die. To me that points up that the terrorists are having a more difficult time finding people who are willing to throw their lives away to kill a few enemies. Was not just a year or two ago that Hamas or al Aqsa announced that they would now allow women to serve as suicide bombers as well. Perhaps they needed to open their recruiting pool because the current one was running dry. IIRC, there was some question as to whether all of the 19 9/11 hijackers realized they were on a suicide mission. On the other hand, you have events such as the recent Israeli assassination of the Hamas leader which brings 200,000 Palestinians into the streets chanting for revenge.

Dawg

[2112]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/29/172749.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37799

(couldn't find this story on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS or ABC)...

[Dawg]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/29/172749.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37799

(couldn't find this story on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS or ABC)...
Its a moot point now. Rice is going to testify. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20040330/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept_11_commission)

I don't think anyone is accusing Rice of hiding behind this rule. Unless the administration grants her permission to do so, as they have now done, she was bound to follow the rules and regulations of her office. What I did find interesting is that the White House had two requirements for allowing her to testify: 1. that it be strictly labled as non-precedent-setting, 2. that the commission would seek no further public testimony from White House officials. The former point makes sense, given their stated apprehensions; but latter point worries me. Do they know there are questions that will arise from her forthcoming testimony and they are defending themselves from further investigation? Until we hear her testimony, its only speculation... it just strikes me as too defensive to without reason.

Dawg

[Chairman_Kaga]

Dawg, I'm just glad she's testifying. I wouldn't think the WH would "back" her testifying if they thought it would open up another WH official to scrutiny.

Although, if we get a lot of "I cannot answer that on grounds of National Security" type of answers, I'll feel really cheated on this one. We get no answers AND we can't ask anyone else who is "in the know".

[Chalybos]

Dawg, I'm just glad she's testifying. I wouldn't think the WH would "back" her testifying if they thought it would open up another WH official to scrutiny.

Although, if we get a lot of "I cannot answer that on grounds of National Security" type of answers, I'll feel really cheated on this one. We get no answers AND we can't ask anyone else who is "in the know".
Get ready to feel cheated.

[Vygramul]

Dawg, I'm just glad she's testifying. I wouldn't think the WH would "back" her testifying if they thought it would open up another WH official to scrutiny.

Although, if we get a lot of "I cannot answer that on grounds of National Security" type of answers, I'll feel really cheated on this one. We get no answers AND we can't ask anyone else who is "in the know".
Get ready to feel cheated.

:nod:

[ChimChim]

<Two Cents>

Thought One: God protect all our servicemen and -women. And Thank You to all those that do or did serve. I recently lost a cousin in the latest scirmage in Iraq http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2471442, so these thanks are very heartfelt.

Thought Two: I think Bush was wrong to go into Iraq for the stated reasons. I wouldn't have much of a problem if he targeted Hussein specifically based on the information we have about him. The Terrorist Organizations I would definitely target for extinction - or at least decapitation - of course understanding how difficult that may be to do. I was glad to see us finally retaliate with prejudice, but I think it was misdirected.

Thought Three: I, for one, am very interested in seeing Mrs. Rice testify. It's not, however, that I don't buy in to the "Executive Priveledge" issue - I certainly see the need for it. It's more that I find her a very intelligent and dynamic person and I want to get a closer look at how she handles herself. I would not be surprised if she makes a bid for some higher office soon.

Thought Four: Mr. Clark, himself, used the "executive priveledge" excuse during the Clinton administration.

Thought Five: Of course, it's no coincidence that these hearings are being held now - during the ramp up of the coming - very nasty - Presidential elections. They could have been held much sooner - if at all, as there probably won't be anything surprising coming out of this. How much is this costing anyway?

Thought Six: These hearings certainly won't hurt Mr. Clark's book sales. If he's truly apologetic and takes responsibilty for his failure (his word not mine), then I would think he would wish to donate the proceeds of his book to the families of the brave men and women who have suffered the most from this.

Thought Seven: I am disgusted with the so-called "two party" political system. Rhetoric aside, I see no difference in the actions of either party in office. One party likes taxes, the other doesn't - it's just a ruse to distract us from the real damage being done by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Courts to our precious Constitutional rights! Witness the fiasco of the 5th Circuit's decision on what is considered Illegal Search and Seizure. Perhaps it's time that the South rise again?

</Two Cents>

[DrGreen]

Nobody sees a sucker punch coming.
Not that 1 not the next 1.
U can talk about what could have been done till your blue (or green :P ) in the face,
You can build walls, strip away civil liberties, and make commercial flying nude & luggageless.
It won't matter.
It won't bring any victim back to life & you'll never be sure of who or where the next one will be much less how to protect them.
It's not meant as cynicism, just realism.

This appears to be a big story.
A big story or another distraction.
I can't help but wonder while the nation becomes polarized on esoteric matters like to testify or not, Clark's agenda, Clinton's infidelity, or even Janet's T!T,
What we need to know is what's going on right now during all this that we're not hearing about or paying attention to.
Seems like that was the original problem to begin with.

Government:
Just another way of saying "Better than you".

TESTIFY!!! (http://phoenixlabs.com/Rx/testify.mp3)

[laters]

Very sorry to learn about your loss, buddy. I lost a couple of friends during the Gulf War, and a few people I know have kids that are over there right now, so I know what it's like...


Thought Three: I, for one, am very interested in seeing Mrs. Rice testify. It's not, however, that I don't buy in to the "Executive Priveledge" issue - I certainly see the need for it. It's more that I find her a very intelligent and dynamic person and I want to get a closer look at how she handles herself. I would not be surprised if she makes a bid for some higher office soon.
That is close to what I had in mind when I heard about the WH not allowing her to talk. From what I've heard, she is a very capable person and certainly not an incompetent individual. I was ticked off by the fact that the WH had an alterior motive for not letting her talk and used the 'executive privilege' BS to cover it up. In the remaining time before she testifies, I am sure they'll coach her to death about how not to say anything that may have any impact on the upcoming election. ...but enough about that.


Thought Seven: I am disgusted with the so-called "two party" political system. Rhetoric aside, I see no difference in the actions of either party in office. One party likes taxes, the other doesn't - it's just a ruse to distract us from the real damage being done by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Courts to our precious Constitutional rights! Witness the fiasco of the 5th Circuit's decision on what is considered Illegal Search and Seizure. Perhaps it's time that the South rise again?

I know I am going to be stepping on some toes, but as far as I'm concerned, political parties are nothing but fund-raising machines for the select few. At the lower end you have the contributors who are given empty promises in exchange for their hard-earned money, and at the other end you have power hungry politicians (Do we have any statesmen left? I doubt it.) who do nothing but wait for their moment in the spotlight. Seriously, I can't remember the last time I thought of a president as a leader of any sort. All the presidents who served in my lifetime seemed to be more worried about getting re-elected than about exhibiting true leadership. Recently I received a Republican Party Committee membership renewal notice which 'kindly' reminded me that I haven't submitted my renewal. What a joke. First off, I've always been a non-partisan, so for them to lie in my face by insinuating that I was a Committee member at any given time is an insult. Secondly, they don't even care whether or not I exist. All they see is just another name on the registered voter list whom they dare think can squeeze a few bucks out of in the name of contribution. I wrote on the letter, "I enclose my contribution herein" and sent it back to them. I'm sure I'll get another letter from them who are most likely to tell me that they are 'concerned' that my contribution may have been either omitted or lost in transit. I'm laughing already.

[Hsnopi]

I'm not sure holding the president responsible would necessarily make future presidents not use plausible deniability. if anythign I think it woudl cause more of that. Not sayig it shouldn't be done anyway. But it may cause administrations to freeze out of fear. Currently they have to explain everything to everyone. which is how it should be. But they also try to please everyone. and you just can't do that. so they cover up anything that would cause them issues. so you get fluff.

[Vygramul]

Well, with the short interview quote below, I'm not sure what the hell Clarke's point in all this is.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB108062031371468811-IBje4Nolah3oJ6qZXqJb6aDm4,00.html

[Dawg]

I'm not sure holding the president responsible would necessarily make future presidents not use plausible deniability. if anythign I think it woudl cause more of that. Not sayig it shouldn't be done anyway. But it may cause administrations to freeze out of fear. Currently they have to explain everything to everyone. which is how it should be. But they also try to please everyone. and you just can't do that. so they cover up anything that would cause them issues. so you get fluff.
If the President is responsible then he should be held responsible. Period.

If he has done nothing wrong then no amount of exposure should cause problems for him. Plausible deniability is only required for actions that you do not want to be associated with. If our Presidents engage in such activities then they are running a risk. But it is a risk they have decided to take.

Nobody is forced to become President. Nobody ends up in the office without having a hunger for power. If they abuse or misuse that power when in office they should be held accountable. The President is no better than anyone else - he is not above the law.

Dawg

[Canadian Hick]

Well, with the short interview quote below, I'm not sure what the hell Clarke's point in all this is.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB108062031371468811-IBje4Nolah3oJ6qZXqJb6aDm4,00.html
Too bias to take seriously.

[Dawg]

Well, with the short interview quote below, I'm not sure what the hell Clarke's point in all this is.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB108062031371468811-IBje4Nolah3oJ6qZXqJb6aDm4,00.html
Too bias to take seriously.
Consider only the fact... Clarke agrees that little, if anything, could have been done to stop 9/11. He never posited otherwise. The WSJ tries to put a little spin on it that he being deceitful, but he never said that 9/11 was the fault of the current administration. It probably would have happended regardless of who was in power unless a dramatic change occured in the anti-terrorism policy, which was unlikely.

Dawg

[Chairman_Kaga]

Well, with the short interview quote below, I'm not sure what the hell Clarke's point in all this is.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB108062031371468811-IBje4Nolah3oJ6qZXqJb6aDm4,00.html
Too bias to take seriously.
Clarke's quote under oath in his public testimony.