"When I read that Clarke insinuated that Condoleezza Rice acted surprised at the term "al Qaeda" and that she had not heard the term before, I think he proved how ridiculous and spiteful he was with working with her. Possibly he didn't like working under a woman or maybe it was just that he hated working under a black woman. It seems to me that the Democrats embrace minorities until they disagree with them and then they go balls to the wall to discredit them."
Ridiculous, spiteful, racist, and anti female......this goes along with incompetent, disgruntled, self agrandizing and a host of other charges leveled at Clarke by the Bush attack machine...interestingly enough, former Treasury Secretary Paul Oneill, made the same allegtions about Bush being preoccupied with Iraq prior to 9-11 too. Was he a racist, and incompetent to boot?
One wonders why it was Clarke that Rice put in charge on 9-11, to coordinate the government's response on that terrible day. Perhaps because he was competent and Rice had confidence in him? An unlikely assignment by Rice of Clarke, if he was any of these things that you opine about. Read the first chapter of Clarke's book......and note, not a single person in the Bush attack machine has contested Clarke's account of that day.
Show me some proof that Clarke was motivated by anything that you've listed here, one single shred of evidence that Clarke(a registered Republican by the way, not a Democrat, so get your story straight) was any of the things you say he is. Something other than just your opinion, and whatever clap trap the right wing knuckleheads are spewing from their radio mics........
-- Modified on 3/29/2004 7:56:07 PM
Not intending to pick sides in the debate... But I do find something a bit ironic about the administration's reasons for Rice not testifying...
The White House is concerned that having executive branch advisors testify before congress will take us down the "slippery slope" of eroding the constitutional barrier between branches.
It's interesting that the White house IS allowed to invoke the "slippery slope of constitutional erosion" doctrine, yet when citizens express concern that the Patriot Act and other developments create the same slippery slope, their argument is discarded.
It seems we should, as a country, pick one or the other... Either:
a. Terrorism is such a make-or-break issue for our society that we all agree that fighting it requires that we temporarily "loosen" constitutional interpretation, or
b. Constitutional freedoms are so fundamental to our society that they cannot be eroded, even in the face of terrorism.
If the answer is (a), then we disregard the White House's reservations and Rice testifies. If the answer is (b) then the Patriot Act has to go.
But either answer is far more preferential to the current situation, where the government has access to a very tight interpretation of the Constitution, while the citizen does not. That is hipocrasy of the highest order, and strikes me as far more dangerous than any "slippery slope."
The problem with your analysis is this: erosions of constitutional freedoms occur regularly; erosions of separation of powers doctrine do not.
How else do you explain the Supreme Court's ruling on the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold, its New Deal "commerce clause" decisionmaking, its failure to stop the creeping socialism of the last eighty years, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam?
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you about the Patriot Act ... if it were actually as bad as the Chicken Little BushHaters said it is. The fact is, many of the same American Library Association types who rail against a provision never used have nothing to say about Castro's treatment of dissident librarians in "Cuber," as the Almighty Rushdie would say. It is this kind of hypocrisy that reveals them as the socialists that they are.
The Patriot Act is the best thing to happen to the ACLU types, since it's a good fundraising tool. The problem is, it gets in the way of their desire to promote homo "marriage," abortion on demand, and gun grabbing. Gee, at this rate, they might actually have to stand up against what could be a REAL threat to constitutional liberties (and I concede that it could be).
I understand your point, however, it doesn't seem to much of a stretch to me that the threat of terrorism as great as it is would call for even more secrecy from the Executive branch.
It has been a time honored rule that Executive Privilege restricts congress from demanding testimony from any National Security Advisor in any past administration. Furthermore, I believe that Richard Clarke knew quite well that his "claims" would put the Bush Administration in this awkward position.
When I read that Clarke insinuated that Condoleezza Rice acted surprised at the term "al Qaeda" and that she had not heard the term before, I think he proved how ridiculous and spiteful he was with working with her. Possibly he didn't like working under a woman or maybe it was just that he hated working under a black woman. It seems to me that the Democrats embrace minorities until they disagree with them and then they go balls to the wall to discredit them.
Rice has been unfairly put in a no win situation. As a partisan, I would suggest that it has been a calculated move to discredit her. After all Rice has been mentioned quite frequently as a possible candidate for the presidency in 2008, and a move to discredit her now would play well in Hillary's run in 2008.
If Rice sticks to her guns, the opposition will continue to tout Clarke's assertions, if she testifies, they will just call her a liar. Personally I think the whole 9/11 Commission is a exercise in mental masturbation. Everyone looking for someone to blame when we should be united in the War on Terrorism. Al Jazeera is just having a field day with all of this.
now clark is a biggot and woman hater lookinf towards the 2008 election........omfg.....your a friggin frootloop !!!!!!!!!!!!. try taking jrs weiner outta your arse and coming up for some fresh air....bring james with ya.....lmfao
You're a credit to your state!
Here's a link that many others might find interesting. It seems that Richard Clarke also refused to testify while under the employ of the Clinton Administration.
"the whole 9/11 Commission is a exercise in mental masturbation"
Absolutely! 100% correct!
Can you come up with any facts that we know now because of the 9/11 Commission?
Of course we have heard quite a bit from the Drama Queen Richard Clarke, (the first chapter of his book is really quite humorous in regards to his "self importance", although none of it is corroborated by anyone else who was there.)
Eight years he served a more important role for Clinton, nothing was done to curtail terrorism, eight months after Bush takes office 9/11 happens and one month later we take out the Taliban and kick al Qaeda into caves. (BTW something the Russian Army couldn't accomplish in over 10 years). And Clarke accuses Bush of lack of action? And the Bush haters out there buy it hook, line and sinker. Funny though, it seems the American people are not buying it, Bush's numbers have increased dramatically this past week.
During the first 8 month's of the Bush Administration, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) did everything in his power to block as many Bush appointee's as possible. Days following 9/11 they were all approved. Prior to 9/11 Bush was undermined by at the very least Carl Levin in establishing his own team.
Even Mullah Mohammed Omar, "Supreme Leader of the Taliban" has stated that he and bin Laden did not expect the US to retaliate with such force after 9/11! Could it be that they had been emboldened by Clinton's lack of action over the previous 8 years? It seems logical to me and so far this is what I have learned from the 9/11 Commission.
I wouldn't be supportive of this kind of Commission even if a Democrat was in office. It has turned into nothing more that a partisan political battle to assign blame.
No, they actually thought that because they had held the Russians off for so long, long enough for them (Russians) to pull out of there, that the USA would be easy to beat on their home turf. They thought the Russians could whoop the USA's ass, therefore they could beat US.
yeah , you wanna link that horshir remark about omar
I think that the White House feels they are in a shitload of trouble over all this. They are certainly acting like it. The so-called Alsop Effect is taking hold: it all happened on Mr Bush's watch, and he is going to have to take the responsibility for it. Any claim for heroic or "presidential" behavior relating to 9/11 is going to be made to look silly. The country was attacked, people in the government were telling him there could be some kind of an attack, he did not stop it and was caught flat-footed. In short, he fucked up. Bribite, you know you can't shine shit. Further, Mr Bush will not get any prettier by comparing himself to Clinton. Bush is president and Clinton is not. Mr Bush's attempt to "take credit" for things after 9/11 won't work at the margin in American Politics. Right now, Bush's best political advice would be to do a Richard Clark, apologize for allowing the country to be attacked on his watch, and move on from there.
Leave it to the historians to argue about who to blame for all this in 20 years: they may have all the facts.
Mr Bush has set the country on a course with his invasion of Iraq that it WILL NOT be able to change quickly. During the campaign period, he will have to deal with the short term conquences of his choice. Right now, I think the country is close to evenly spliit on the wisdom of the invasion (although his support is eroding).
Who knows how it will turn out in the long run?
It's not a matter of opinion, Bush's numbers increased in the last 7 day to over 50%.
Right now the democrats are the ones attempting to shovel shit, you have to be blind not to see it, apparently the swing voters are seeing it.
Waiting 20 years to find the fault in policy may well be too late. Support for Bush and Iraq was eroding, it appears that it is turning the other way now. Now that the electorate has given Kerry time to layout his plan - (which of course we know is waiting for Godot), and Kerry has done little other than personally attack Bush. It is not working.
All in all his numbers may well be increasing because his opponent is such a buffoon. Did you catch any of that on MTV last night, I was laughing my ass off and then I noticed that the kids in attendance were laughing at him too! It gave me hope for our country!
Bush might occasionally destroy the language once in a while, but, when asked a question, he gives a straight answer, its never been a mystery as to his opinions and stands. Kerry did not answer one question last night, he ducked, he dived, he made a fool of himself. Trying to get Kerry to express an opinion on anything of significance is a lot like nailing Jell-O to a tree. Asked to prove his social relevance, a young man asked him to identify the significance of his "Malcolm X" hat - Kerry thought it was some Latin thing to do with the number 10! What an idiot! Could Hollywood spend any more money promoting a film than they did "X"? Everyone over the age of 12 knows about it! Kerry may be all the momentum Bush needs for a victory in November.
Here's another one, Kerry was asked, "Who is the most inspirational person in your life?" Kerry could not think of anybody! I heard a guy say that is because anybody inspirational would not support Kerry. LOL
Bush might occasionally destroy the language once in a while, but, when asked a question, he gives a straight answer. Kerry did not answer one question last night, he ducked, he dived, he made a fool of himself. Kerry may be all the momentum Bush needs for a victory in November.
Harry I respect your opinion, so please don't tell me that you are pleased with candidate Kerry! How could anybody vote for someone who won't tell what he thinks? I think Kerry's only thought is "I want to be president!", after that he needs to wet a finger and stick it in the air.
What numbers do you see as increasing?
Bribite, I respect your opinions (as I believe you respect mine) and I think you are a thoughtful person. If you were to ask me personally, I agree with Mr Bush's military interventions. I personally think they will be successful in the long run, provided we as a country approach this with the same high level of committment we had for the Marshall Plan. I have no love for the mess Islam has left in the Middle East and Africa.
However, Mr Bush had the watch when we were attacked on 9/11. He (people in the white house) ignored warnings from people in the government this would happen. He has to take the blame and move on. People have to be fired. Life is unfair. Additionally, he is going to have to take the heat for everything that will happen between now and the election. The nation can understand that many bad things are going to happen. They won't let him try to blame anybody else. If Mr Bush can't deal with these relaities, he isn't cut out for leadership. He has to make the thing work and make people believe it will turn out well. If he doesn't, he will lose his job. That is all I am saying.
I'm not worried about Mr Bush's intellegence or speech patterns (although, he should realize that the other party is the "Democratic" party, not the "Democrat" party) . I just want a leader who acts like one. For a model, Mr Bush should look to Kennedy's behavior after the Bay of Pigs. For another good model, he should look carefully at Clinton's behavior after he admitted he lied about Monica. Bush has to stand up and admit he fucked up and thousands of people died.
Insightful comments, Harry, and devoid of the BushHating rhetoric motivating so many. For that reason alone, they can be taken seriously.
I think the whole Commission idea is a waste of time, and may be affirmatively destructive. We didn't wring our hands after Pearl Harbor (with a whole lot more warning and considerably more reason, with the wisdom of hindsight) to assign blame; we got in there, joined together, and did the job.
The only disagreement that I have is with the notion that "he fucked up and thousands of people died." The problem with assigning blame to Bush is that you have to assign it equally, if not more, to Clinton, since the 1993 WTC/Khobar Towers/ African embassy bombings/Cole attacks occurred on his watch. I'm not saying give Bush a pass, nor am I willing to blame everything on Clinton. What I am saying is that we are wasting time, money, and political energy in a process which, if not designed to do so, is being used by power-hungrey Democrats to sap our political will out of a desire for power. In the modern world, the ability of one maniac or a small group of maniacs to wreck devastation has increased exponentially. The 9/11 attacks were, unfortunately, just like the old story about the mule:
Guy buys a mule on representation that he's the best mule in the world. Gets him home, and the mule won't do shit. Just stands there, flicking flies. Wrestles him back on the trailer, returns him to the farmer, and explains the problem. The farmer thinks about it for a minute, then picks up a 2x4, and smacks the mule right between the eyes, explaining "First, you have to get his attention."
... we are starting toward a path for a more common ground about how to think about 9/11.
By the way, there was a lot of anger toward Roosevelt about Pearl Harbor and many claims tht he should have been more prepared, but was not. There just wasn't a commission, and we were in a much more dangerous war where most Americans were involved.
As to 9/11; the attacks happened during Bush's watch. He (his administration) has to take the blame. There was all sorts of information floating around about impending attacks in the government. The WTC was a natural target. It wasn't protected, Thousands of people died. The administration has responded to these attacks (you can argue forever about the efficacy of the response). They haven't taken responsibility. In fact, they are basing the early part of their campaign on 9/11! Who are they really fooling?
Regardless of what you might feel about Mr Clark, his apology to the families of the 9/11 dead was the kind of class that the administration should have done earlier and should emulate now. It admits an obvious truth,. It says mistakes were made. It talks about how these mistakes won't be repeated.
Thanks to all of you for the conversations... Harry
A couple of thoughts ...
"As to 9/11; the attacks happened during Bush's watch. He (his administration) has to take the blame."
I can't agree with this, since it smacks of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. The "blame" is on the evildoer. Assigning "blame" on the Administration for these acts presumes that they could have been prevented, an assertion which is dubious at best.
"Mr Clark['s] ... apology to the families of the 9/11 dead was the kind of class that the administration should have done earlier and should emulate now."
I can't disagree more strongly. Indeed, his "apology" was precisely the kind of moral exhibitionism which so characterizes the sanctimonious Left. And it wasn't much of an apology, seeming to boil down to "I'm sorry that I wasn't persuasive enough to get those idiots in the Bush Administration to listen to me." Rings quite hollow, when you consider it. As others have observed, ten years from now, Clarke will be forgotten. I'd bet that ten months from now, his book will be a superbargain at Borders, Waldenbooks, etc., and maybe even at the Dollar Tree.
I guess it depends upon the actions the Commission took. With partisans like Richard Ben-Veniste taking prominent roles, the entire Commission is suspect. Giving credit to someone who's selling a book is equally suspect.
I reiterate my call for you to engage in some intellectual honesty for a change. I know you're not stupid, so the only alternative seems to be that you are less than truthful at times.
The 9/11 commission has nothing to do with Congress. When they ask that Condi Rice testify under oath they are not asking on behalf of the Congress. They are a bipartisan commission appointed by President Bush - and unless you're completely stupid you can't have missed the fact that self-avowed Republicans on the panel are as vociferous in that request as the Democrats.
Next lie or red herring, please?
You're almost too easy to debunk to make it any fun. Almost.
w/o faith or unquestionable loyalty to those in charge , we may relapse into rational thinking , wich may lead by a slippery slope towards a constitutional democracy !!
if all the presidents were lined up according to iq , jr wold be on the short end standing next to sr.
once a government is committed to the principle silencing of the voice of the opposition, it has only one way to go , and that is down the path of increasinglly repressive measures untill it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens where everone lives in fear.......Harry Truman
one lat bushism, there are so many.............1 word sums up the responsibility of any govenor and that one word is " to be prepared".......lmao ,
w/o faith or unquestionable loyalty to those in charge , we may relapse into rational thinking , wich may lead by a slippery slope towards a constitutional democracy !!
if all the presidents were lined up according to iq , jr wold be on the short end standing next to sr.
once a government is committed to the principle silencing of the voice of the opposition, it has only one way to go , and that is down the path of increasinglly repressive measures untill it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens where everone lives in fear.......Harry Truman
one lat bushism, there are so many.............1 word sums up the responsibility of any govenor and that one word is " to be prepared".......lmao ,
"When I read that Clarke insinuated that Condoleezza Rice acted surprised at the term "al Qaeda" and that she had not heard the term before, I think he proved how ridiculous and spiteful he was with working with her. Possibly he didn't like working under a woman or maybe it was just that he hated working under a black woman. It seems to me that the Democrats embrace minorities until they disagree with them and then they go balls to the wall to discredit them."
Ridiculous, spiteful, racist, and anti female......this goes along with incompetent, disgruntled, self agrandizing and a host of other charges leveled at Clarke by the Bush attack machine...interestingly enough, former Treasury Secretary Paul Oneill, made the same allegtions about Bush being preoccupied with Iraq prior to 9-11 too. Was he a racist, and incompetent to boot?
One wonders why it was Clarke that Rice put in charge on 9-11, to coordinate the government's response on that terrible day. Perhaps because he was competent and Rice had confidence in him? An unlikely assignment by Rice of Clarke, if he was any of these things that you opine about. Read the first chapter of Clarke's book......and note, not a single person in the Bush attack machine has contested Clarke's account of that day.
Show me some proof that Clarke was motivated by anything that you've listed here, one single shred of evidence that Clarke(a registered Republican by the way, not a Democrat, so get your story straight) was any of the things you say he is. Something other than just your opinion, and whatever clap trap the right wing knuckleheads are spewing from their radio mics........
-- Modified on 3/29/2004 7:56:07 PM
Paul O'Neil's comments have been spun to pure bovine scatology levels! Read his book, most of what you have heard that he said, he did not say. The book is still on the shelf, pick it up and read it.
Clarke's record of support, his current change, the release date of his book to correlate with his 9/11 Commission testimony and election cycle, of course his testimony and book should not be questioned...by partisan morons that is!
Rice's credentials make his comment about her naiveté in regards to al Qaeda just ridiculous. He is pissed at the Bush Administration when while working for Clinton nothing he supposedly suggested was acted on. The dems had 8 years to make any meaningful headway in the fight against terror and did NOTHING, which obviously embolden al Qaeda! Within 60 days of 9/11 the Taliban was history and al Qaeda and bin Laden have been living in caves without the ability for reprisal. It is hard to justify his anger at Bush, except for possible financial gain.
Claiming that the Bush Administration was focused on Iraq is not a particular problem for me, so was Clinton and the democrat leaders according to their speeches following their vote in approval of Bush's request for War. At some point, one has to take a side, Bush has, the dems seem to continue to want to take both sides. With our national security at risk, and no solutions coming from the democrats other than appeasement to self serving members of the UN Security Council, I don't think the American public with go that way. Or buy Richard Clarke's dog and pony show to sell his book!
Clearly you are not business minded if you still do not understand the release date of the book.
Can you say sales?
Can you say publicity?
Much like the timing of Janet Jacksons boob, just prior to her new release, or Paris Hiltons sex video, just prior to her TV show.
Thank you, Captain Obvious!
-> "When I read that Clarke insinuated that Condoleezza Rice
-> acted surprised at the term "al Qaeda" and that she had not ->heard the term before,
His impression is invalid because you don't belive it? How many times was the word "al Qaeda" mentioned by the Bush admin before 9/11 eh? If they belived it was a treat shouldn't they tell someone?
-> I think he proved how ridiculous and spiteful he was with ->working with her.
Sounds like a Linda Trip supporter. Did he tape her or trick her or back stab her?
Possibly he didn't like working under a woman or maybe it was just that he hated working under a black woman. It seems to me that the Democrats embrace minorities until they disagree with them and then they go balls to the wall to discredit them.
Tell this to Blacks who have worked for consevatives/republicans.
The GOP is the Race bait party and the Bush's refined it into a art form. Bush supporter believe anything thier hate machine produces like it was the word of g*d. Don't believe me, check out what the former GOP chairman the late Lee Atwater said before he died
Before he died of a brain tumor, Lee Atwater repented for his role in attaching Michael Dukakis to the Willie Horton furlough. Atwater felt that the charge made by the Bush Sr. campaign against Dukakis was distorted and his role in it wrong. It turns out that the furlough of Horton was mandated by legislative law and Dukakis had no choice but to furlough Horton and several others like him, the law was changed after the assault and rape of a woman by Horton while he was on a furlough. I was no fan of Dukakis then and am glad that he is a frumpy professor now, but to pin a lie on a person is wrong and Atwater came to realize that when he was on death's doorstep. That whole sorry saga makes me happy that there are people like John McCain, who after maturing as a politician, stands as a beacon of what young politicians should stive to be everyday of their career. This does not say that McCain has not made missteps, as his role as a target of a senatorial investigation into taking bribes would suggest (McCain and several others, including John Glenn were cleared of the charges).
-- Modified on 3/30/2004 4:55:03 PM