Clarke & the 9/11 Commission could mean the end for Bush

Remove all ads!

Considering the topics presented here in the past, I can't BELIEVE no one has started a thread on this yet. This has the potential to have a huge impact on the way the American government handles terrorism, let alone the obvious political ramifications for Bush's reelection prospects.

For those who've been hiding from newspapers for the last week, here's a quick recap:

Richard Clarke, recently retired White House terrorism czar and quite arguably the most knowledgable person in the world in the area of counter-terrorism, has just released a book called "Against All Enemies," a detailed account of US counterterrorism policies throughout the 90's and today. It also details how Clark asserts (with ample evidence) that the Bush administration dropped the ball with regards to al Quaeda, and furthermore asserts that the war in Iraq has strengthened al Quaeda. Considering that Bush is running his reelection campaign almost solely on his being the "Wartime/9-11" president, this is a pretty damning book.

As you might expect, the heaviest hitters on the right - even the highest members of the Bush administration - have come out in full force to discredit Clarke as a "partisan hack" and a "political opportunist," claiming that Clarke is little more than an embittered partisan, cast aside by Bush and now looking for some political and monatary payback. Clark himself has loyally supported every administration he's worked for - from Reagan to now - and Clarke is known for his apolitical, no-nonsense approach to his work. Hence, the "partisan hack" arguement doesn't really hold up.

But so far, any attempts to discredit Clarke (rather than attempt to disprove what he's saying, I might add) have virtually all fallen flat. Administration officials have directly contradicted each other in their statements against Clarke. When Republican Bill Frist accused Clarke of purgering himself by contradicting in his book what he'd stated in a 2002 private commision testimony, and that that testimony should be partially declassified to discredit him, Clarke returned by saying "absolutely - open the entire 6 hours of that testimony. Let's get it out in the open" (I'm paraphrasing here), the proverbial calling of the bluff. In what's possibly the biggest kicker for the administration, Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, is refusing to testify under oath before the 9-11 commission, even though she's made countless TV appearances lately to debunk Clarke's charges. She's claiming that members of the NSC are not allowed to testify under oath, as it may compromise national security to do so. Despite the increased pressure by the commission itself for her to testify, and the fact that past national security advisors have done so, she is still refusing to do so - even though she absolutely could, and should IMO. Either way, she's catching hell for it.

Before I get too far into my own assessment of the situation, I'd like to hear any other thoughts on this. This could either simply blow over, or it could very well bring Bush down in disgrace. The next few weeks will tell, but I think this is one of the more important issues to face our government in quite some time.

Some background:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/

 

Sorry DR, but this has no traction except with those who already hate Bush so much that they wouldn't believe it if Clarke came out and admitted that he has a personal axe to grind.

First off, I believe that the next time a National Security Advisor testifies in front of Congress with be the first time. If it has happened, it is extremely rare.

Second, even Time (an very liberal medial outlet) has discredited Clarke: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html

Clarke admitted that the Clinton administration had no anti-terrorism policies or plans to pass on to the Bush administration, and yet he expects that Bush should have had it all wrapped up and ready in 8 months? Then he even admits that there was probably nothing that anyone could have done to prevent 9/11, but feels that the administration let us all down?

Clarke's own writings from 2000 are totally consumed with cyber-terrorism. Calling him THE expert on terrorism is a stretch, considering his specialization.

Then there is also the whole fact that he never said a word about any of this until the election year. What better time to release a book criticizing the President? Especially if you are wanting to make a million off of a book?

Finally he contradicts himself more than John Kerry...a tremendous feat to say the least.

Creditability? Slim to none, and Slim just left town.

 

My interest in the commission goes far beyond any partisan slant, and beyond whether or not Bush is helped or harmed by what comes out. The bottom line here is not whether or not the attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented, but rather was everything that could have been reasonably done actually implemented? If the government did everything they could, and they got us anyway, OK, I'm not happy about it, but we did our best.

However, if someone - anyone - dropped the ball on this, that is unacceptable, and the American people have the right to know. Yes, al Qaeda is ultimately responsible for this, but if there were things that could have been reasonably done - even if they only had a slim chance to stop the attack - they should have been done.

I'm up in the air on this right now. I feel confident that a lot of what Clarke says is true, but some things seem impossible to believe. For example, I believe him when he says that he repeatedly urged the administration to take more steps to look into al Qaeda, but the administration did not view the threat as imminent. I don't believe that Rice did not appear to have "ever heard the name al Qaeda" before Clarke brought it up. That one seems almost impossible to believe.

I also can't believe that Rice cannot make an exception to the tradition of not testifying in front of Congress. I am not saying that Rice did anything wrong, but to many people the fact that she will not testify suggests that she has something to hide. Those same people say if she has nothing to hide, why not testify? The fact that national security advisors have the right and in the past have chosen to claim executive priveledge and not testify before Congress is not at issue here. That right is something based on tradition, not law. In a case such as this, where the American public has the right to know, I feel an exception to tradition could and should be made.

Finally, this is only bad news for Bush. Looking at it objectively, I doubt Bush was responsible for dropping the ball - although someone almost certainly was - it's just that the President isn't the responsible party. However, this can change the perception of undecided voters, and more often than not these are the voters that decide the election. (Because chances are, if you already decided to vote for Bush or Kerry, there's little that can be done in the upcoming months that will cause you to change your mind.) And that's why it's bad for Bush - the best case scenario for him is this has no major impact on his re-election bid. I surely cannot envision a way where this will turn out to his advantage.

Edit: Spelling

[ March 30, 2004, 17:06: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Well, I found this article to be of great insite into the hearings on 9/11.

From Strategic Forcasting:


Sorting Through the Accusations
Mar 26, 2004

Summary

The United States is in the process of picking apart the intelligence and political failures that led up to the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on Sept. 11, 2001. This is an unprecedented process. Normally such reviews occur after the war has ended. In this case, the review was made necessary by the president's failure to clean house after Sept. 11. That said, the truth of the matter would appear to be more complex than the simplistic charges being traded. The fact is, in our view, the Bush and Clinton policies were far more similar than they were different. We are not quite certain who we have insulted with that claim.

Analysis

Conducting a highly public inquiry and debate over the origins of a war while that war is being conducted would appear to be one of the most self-destructive exercises imaginable. No reasonable person could argue that mistakes were not made prior to Sept. 11, 2001, any more than it could be argued that mistakes were not made before Dec. 7, 1941. There is no question but that the intelligence system failed to predict the event and that it was supposed to.

But just as the Pearl Harbor inquiry was carried out after the war, so as not to interfere with the war effort, it would seem reasonable that the Sept. 11 inquiries should take place after the war is over. Officials and former officials hurling charges against each other in a public display of disunity does not seem to serve the national interest. There were secret investigations and discussions before World War II ended, but the public report by Congress was not released until July 1946 and not really undertaken in earnest until after the war ended.

It has been argued that the unlimited nature of this war makes waiting for the end impossible. But this war is not unique in appearing to be potentially endless. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one make the argument that previous wars would be temporally contained. As British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey so poignantly stated in 1914 -- at the start of World War I, the shortest of the 20th century's major conflicts -- "The lights are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime." The review could have waited.

However, in all fairness, it should be pointed out that George W. Bush set himself up for this, although not in the way his critics charge. One of the things that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did was to clean house after the Pearl Harbor attack. This housecleaning was not necessarily fair. Adm. Husband Kimmel, Commander in Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC), for example, was fired even though a strong case could be made that he was less responsible than others for Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, Pearl Harbor happened on his watch and he was gone.

It went deeper than that. Roosevelt wanted to signal that something had gone terribly wrong not only with one person but also with a generation of leaders. Relatively junior commanders Chester Nimitz and Dwight Eisenhower were catapulted into senior command positions. Not all of the old leaders were replaced -- consider Douglas MacArthur or George Marshall -- but there was a broad enough housecleaning that no one could escape the fact that the war had changed everything. You could argue that Roosevelt did this to protect himself, but if so, he was doing his job.

President Bush did not clean house after Sept. 11. He kept the same team in place with some very minor second-tier shifts. There was no whirlwind of activity designed to bring in a fresh, wartime team using streamlined procedures. He went with the team he had. There was a defensible case to be made for this. The country was in a state of shock, and an upheaval in the intelligence and defense communities was perceived to be an unnecessary follow-on shock to public morale. Moreover, the battle was joined, and changing commanders in the middle of the battle was dangerous.

Finally, there was a political aspect. The man who was institutionally responsible for detecting Sept. 11 was CIA Director George Tenet. He was 2001's Kimmel. Whether it was his fault or not, Sept. 11 was an intelligence failure. Tenet was in charge of intelligence, and it happened on his watch. Kimmel was sacked -- but Tenet was not a Bush appointee. He had been appointed by Bill Clinton. Bush began with a crippled presidency due to the Florida fiasco. He did not have the national authority of Roosevelt, and he badly needed bipartisan support. Bush obviously respected Tenet since he kept him on after his election. He might have decided to keep him on after Sept. 11 in order to help bulletproof his administration. Tenet was, after all, a Clinton appointee.

The problem with this strategy was that, rather than deflect inquiries, it made them unavoidable. After Dec. 7, those directly and visibly responsible for Pearl Harbor -- excepting the president and his key political appointees -- were removed from the chain of command. After Sept. 11, those most directly and visibly responsible remained in the chain of command. If there were mistakes made, then the people who made those mistakes were still in control of huge parts of the war effort. The question of whether these people were competent could not be avoided.

To put it a little differently: Unlike Roosevelt, Bush failed to armor himself against his political enemies. While Roosevelt, who had a lot more political weight in 1941-1942, successfully deflected political attacks by combining a sense of national emergency with a sense that he was taking steps to deal with the problem, Bush kept his team intact. That meant it was essential to examine their performance -- and their culpability, if any -- prior to Sept. 11.

Bush argued that the United States was in a war, but he never shifted his administration into a wartime mode. Failure -- real or perceived -- was never punished. Bush's one administrative innovation, Homeland Security, moves at a snail's pace. The armed forces did not undergo massive expansion, and the intelligence community was not torn apart and rebuilt in an emergency measure.

The war began with a massive surprise attack. Bush said there was a war going on, but somehow Bush never appeared to be reconfiguring his team for war. It undermined his ability to demand a pass until after the war was over because he sometimes did not act as if a war were going on. This has been noticed. Many Americans do not consider the Bush administration's "war on terror" to be a war at all.

What is most ironic is that an administration regarded as being so highly politicized has been, in fact, so politically incompetent. It is as if the administration never understood that this moment was coming and never prepared for it. It is particularly amazing because the charges against Bush administration -- at least in the way they have been framed -- are so weak. The administration is essentially being charged with two things: first, that it came into office obsessed with Iraq, to the extent that it was considering invading Iraq from the very first meetings it had on national security. Second, it is charged with failing to heed intelligence warnings about al Qaeda, downplaying the threat and therefore not taking actions that might have prevented the attack. Implicit in both these charges is the notion that Bush policies were fundamentally different from Clinton policies -- and that the Clinton policies were superior.

There is no question but that the Bush administration had a focus on Iraq and considered invading Iraq. The explanation that has been given is that this was the desire to complete Bush Senior's job. The actual answer does not require strained readings of Sigmund Freud. The fact is that the Bush administration was simply continuing the Clinton administration's policies on Iraq, virtually without change.

The very first briefings Bush was given when he took office had to have been about Iraq. That is because U.S. and British aircraft were carrying out constant combat operations over Iraq, patrolling the no-fly zones. These missions had been carried out from the end of Desert Storm -- during the administration of President George H. W. Bush -- throughout the Clinton years, under U.N. mandate. The Clinton administration at times intensified these attacks. In December 1998, for example, it carried out Operation Desert Fox in response to Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country. The Clinton administration also attempted on various occasions to overthrow Hussein through covert operations; Clinton also continued sanctions on Iraq.

None of these efforts were effective in bringing about change, but Clinton did not discontinue the combat operations, sanctions or desultory covert operations. Although it was generally felt that these were unsuccessful, Clinton was trapped by a lack of alternatives. He did not want to mount a full invasion. At the same time, he did not want to halt the ineffective actions against Hussein and signal American weakness, undermine the regional alliance and embolden Hussein. The patrols continued, as did occasional bombings of Iraq.

Given that the United States had been involved in combat operations in Iraq for more than a decade, one would hope that the first topic on President Bush's foreign policy agenda would have been Iraq. What else would it have been? Bush shared the view of the previous two presidents that halting operations was not possible and bringing Hussein's government down was a major U.S. foreign policy goal. The new administration obviously conducted an early review of how to bring closure to the U.S. Iraq policy.

In this review, it would have been noted that the Clinton policy had failed to achieve the stated goals. Continuing the policy of ineffective combat and covert operations coupled with sanctions was soaking up U.S. military and intelligence resources without achieving any goal. Bush accepted Clinton's premise that simply walking away was not an option. That left only intensified military options, the most certain of which would be an invasion.

Anyone thinking about Iraq in the spring of 2001 knew that the Clinton policy could not continue indefinitely. Obviously one faction was going to argue that since the United States could not walk away, the only solution was an invasion. That appears to be what several people thought, including Donald Rumsfeld. What is most noteworthy is that they were -- for the time being at least -- overruled. There was no invasion, nor any buildup in the region for an invasion. Bush decided, essentially by default, to continue Clinton's Iraq policy.

Now that may have been a defensible position, all things considered, or one could charge that Bush was continuing a failed foreign policy begun by his father. But charging that the Bush administration was unreasonably obsessed with overthrowing Hussein -- given the context which the Clinton and Bush Sr. administrations had created for them -- is truly stretching things.

If the Bush administration was obsessed with anything, it was China. When Donald Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense, he said that the new focus of U.S. defense policy would be Asia, and plans were rapidly drawn for redeploying forces there. The dominant event between Bush's inauguration and Sept. 11 was the crisis with China over the downing of the EP-3 aircraft over Hainan Island. Asia was reinforced. Iraq was not.

So too with the charge that Bush had failed to take al Qaeda seriously. To be more precise, there had been a persistent failure -- in both the Clinton and Bush administrations -- to take al Qaeda and radical Islamists seriously. Part of the fault lay directly with the CIA and the manner in which it collected intelligence and analyzed it -- but Bush's CIA director was the same as Clinton's. Blaming Bush for unique neglect of al Qaeda for eight months, after Clinton's eight years, is hard to fathom. Indeed, part of the fault lies with some of the terrorism experts now critical of Bush. When their record is examined, many did warn about al Qaeda, but over the course of their careers they had issued similar warnings about so many groups that it was hard to distinguish the real from the fantastic. It was a profession that had cried wolf too many times.

The Bush failure was the same as the Clinton failure. Both administrations looked at al Qaeda as the heir of the Palestinian terrorist movement of the 1970s and 1980s. They would set off a few bombs, kill no more than a few dozen people, hijack planes and represent an irritant and a nuisance far more than a strategic threat. Their rhetoric was extreme, but no more extreme than that of other groups that never were able to match rhetoric with action.

The misevaluation of al Qaeda was a systemic failure that ran from the CIA to the American public. We recall no public outcry for increased expenditures on intelligence and counterterrorism in the 1990s. Nor was there massive public unrest when -- after attacks against Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the East African embassies or the USS Cole in Yemen, all of which claimed American lives -- a major effort to destroy al Qaeda was not undertaken. As a nation, the United States calmly accepted the danger. For the Clinton administration to claim that it had devoted major resources and made a great effort to hunt down and destroy al Qaeda is simply not true. To their credit, both former Defense Secretary William Cohen and Secretary of State Madeline Albright testified this week that their efforts against al Qaeda were both thin and constrained by public disinterest. In its policy of inaction, the Clinton team was simply tracking the American public's mood.

There are two charges that can be legitimately leveled against George W. Bush. The first is that, in spite of knowing that the Clinton policy on Iraq was ineffective, he neither ended the containment of Hussein nor moved to destroy him. Bush carried on Clinton's policies unchanged. The second charge is that Bush did not increase the level of effort taken to destroy al Qaeda, but essentially followed the Clinton administration's policy of watching and hoping for a low-risk, low-cost moment to act -- a moment that Osama bin Laden was too smart to give them.

In our view, the most serious charge that can be made against Bush is not that he continued -- unchanged -- key Clinton policies before Sept. 11, but that he did not drastically reshape his administration for war after Sept. 11. He left in place the man who was responsible for the failure to understand, locate and destroy al Qaeda under President Bill Clinton and inexplicably left him and others in place, even after his failures became manifest on -- and after -- Sept. 11.

This was, in our view, a serious error in judgment. It may be an unforgivable one. But to hold Bush's eight months in office as having been more responsible for al Qaeda's emergence than Clinton's eight years in office -- not to mention the Carter and Reagan administrations' responsibility for encouraging militant Islam -- strikes us as strange reasoning. Sept. 11 was planned, and it was being implemented while Clinton was president. Bush simply adopted wholesale -- and extended -- Clinton's errors.

This is not an argument for Clinton or Bush. Given the mood of the country, it is unlikely that any president would have done much differently. Had either man proposed invading Afghanistan prior to Sept. 11, both would have been labeled as certifiably insane. The problem was rooted in the mind-set that had enamored the American people after the end of the Cold War: a belief that the world had become a safe place to live and that those who said otherwise were alarmist cranks.

Sept. 11 was a systemic failure of the nation, for which both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty. Bush's errors in judgment did not occur before the war, but after the war began. The current attempt to prove some spectacular failure by Bush before the war makes political sense, but it is intellectually incoherent and misses the places where Bush made genuine errors. Bush did fail. He failed to hold the intelligence community responsible for its failures, tear it apart and rebuild it. He failed to find a Nimitz to run the CIA. We regard this as an enormously serious charge against him. For the rest, he shares responsibility with his predecessor -- and with the rest of us.

 

@Llandon - Is a more precise citation in order?

I see the Strategic Forecasting part, but who publishes this, who is the author, is it politically neutral, etc.?

 

@ Darkie (good to see you back, old chum)

Speak for yourself, my friend. Bush's poll numbers with regard to the his handling of 9/11 have plummeted recently, from 70% a month ago down to 53%. This hurts him more than you seem to realize, or at least acknowledge. Believe me, this has plenty of traction.

Sandy Berger testified in both 1994 and 1997. Condi could wave priviledge any time she wants and testify. Just because it's rare doesn't mean it couldn't, and shouldn't, happen. If, as she claims, she has nothing to hide, why not declare Clarke a fraud under oath? Every day she goes without testifying makes the administration look more like they have something to hide. As if Bush fighting the commission tooth and nail in the first place wasn't enough of an indicator.

Funny, I've read exactly the opposite. Source?

This specialization shifted out of frustration with the way the incoming administration had treated the focus on terrorism. One with his experience can certainly have more than one specialty.

Then it shouldn't be too difficult for his contradictions to be documented publicly. After all, he has just testified under oath, hasn't he? If he's a liar, and proven so, then he is guilty of purgery, isn't he? I would say the stakes are quite high. If he's so full of sh*t, and with the urgency of Bush's staff "greasing the wheels of industry" so to speak, he'll be brought up on purgery charges within the next few weeks, all his credibility in total doubt, tying him up in court and guaranteeing no one will take him seriously again.

Believe me, if he's lying, I want to know. If he's misleading us, which will essentially mean his apology to the 9/11 families would be deplorable to say the least, I want to know about it. If the Bush administration is truly as honest, correct, and morally untouchable as they say they are, I want to know. But wether you want to admit it or not, there's ample evidence to suggest otherwise. As Aldeth pointed out, those who are already decided won't be swayed by this for the most part. But the swing voters are already starting to show their outrage, and the Bushies are certainly shooting themselves in the foot about every 5 minutes lately. So we'll see.

 

Sorry guys and gals....I guess I should have given more info on StratFor.

It seems to be a completely non partisian web site, and a really great one at that!

Please check out their web page here. It costs way too much money to join it as a full member(for me at least.....but they do give snipits of info and insite for free from time to time.

Check here:

http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/static_index.neo

 

So, we've had Clarke, Paul O'Neil, and Wilson. All of whom are disgruntled and have an axe of some sort.

Maybe Compared to Fox.

And you mean the same liberal Time that made Shrub Person of the Year in 2000.

http://www.time.com/time/poy2000/

Wow! How liberal.

 

@Chandos

They also made Hitler and Khomeni person of the year. The distinction goes to the person who they feel had the most impact that year. Receiving the distinction is not necessarily positive.

But then you knew that already.

On topic:

I don't believe Clarke or Bush. The truth will never come out.

 

DR,

Thanks for the welcome back, I hope the warm fuzzy feeling continues!


You are deluding yourself if you believe that this will decide the election. Most people in this country are only aware of the headlines regarding this hearing, not the substance, and in 2 weeks it will have completely blown over, Clarke will write "mission accomplished" (hitting #1 on the best seller lists) in his journal, and most people will go back to their original beliefs regarding the war. As the head into the voting booths, the performance of the economy over the months prior to the election will with the deciding factor in most people's minds, and this hearing will be way down the list of secondary considerations. You give the average American citizen way too much credit regarding their knowledge of current events and memory.

As far as CR refusing to testify, I would guess it is for the same reasons that the Clinton Administration refused to allow Clarke to testify in front of the special committee on the Y2K scare back in 1999. There are valid reasons why those who interact directly with the President do not testify in front of open committees. I will not hijack this tread but the have to do with not being put in a position where they cannot defend themselves or the Administration without giving up classified info.

Regarding my statement to there being no plans, I definitely over stepped that one. Clarification, there were no plans regarding Al Qeada that were passed on to the Bush administration.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

That frustration must have begun with the Clinton Administration, as it was back in 1999 when Clarke started spouting his mantra that the greatest threat from terrorism is in cyber-space. If he knew so much, why didn't he quite prior to 9/11, or even come out right after 9/11 and tell everyone what he "knew" then?

Finally,

I never said he perjured himself. Please scroll up and read the Time article I linked above. He can say anything he wants when not under oath (as long as he is not slandering), and then go tell a different story under oath, and as long as he sticks by the story he told when he was under oath, and no one can prove he provided untrue statements of fact while under oath, there is no perjury, just completely blown credibility.

That was my zircon posting (#350), is zircon a natural jem stone, or is it just a creation of man?

 

Jack Funk - Have you spotted a trend? Well, there is an adage that there is no such thing as "bad publicity." But as you can see the words are hardly negative. It is not often that I agree with Time's choice. And - surprise - as things turned out, they had no idea what they were talking about.

[ March 30, 2004, 17:31: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ Darkie

Come on, you know the answer to this. Clarke was known for his dedication and loyalty to the administration he was serving under, Republican or Democrat (though Clarke is a Republican). And even if he were the Liberal shill people are unsuccessfully trying to make him out to be, the political climate in the last two years has been that any criticism of the president, especially in the 6 months after 9/11, was considered downright treasonous. "How can you criticize the president!? We're at WAR! Why do you hate America?" Besides, no good would have come from a monday-morning quarterback job at that point. What was important at that point was not who screwed up, but how we answer this threat. He could have made a big stink about every single one of his recommendations being ignored before 9/11 and adopted AFTER 9/11 when it was too late, but what would that solve? The issue afterwards was to focus on the elimination of al Quaeda. Which was going fine...until we shifted all resources and focus to a bogus war with Iraq who, despite the obvious connotation of being our greatest perceived enemy and the Bush administration implying they had something to do with 9/11, was a completely unnecessary distration that COULD HAVE WAITED until after al Quaeda was rounded up and eliminated.

The reason he's coming out now is because he knows better than anyone that Bush running his re-election almost entirely on the basis that he's impecably handling the war on terrorism is preposterous. If you can honestly say with a straight face that invading Iraq actually made a dent in al Quaeda, and wasn't the best recruitment tool Osama ever could've asked for, I must say I admire your faith, I guess.

As for your link of what he said in 2002, I believe Clarke stated that was him being ordered by Bush to "play up the good and leave out the bad," otherwise known as "spin" by a faithful public servant who's done that more than once for a president he served under.

My point was about more than the penalty for perjury. In both testifying publicly and writing a book detailing his entire case, he's leaving himself and his record open for intense scrutiny. This either means he's an idiot or he's the real deal. My point was that if he's so wrong, and he has no credibility as you say, than debunking what he has to say should be a cakewalk for an administration who accells at the counter attack. So far they've fallen face first and caught totally with their pants down, despite the White House delaying the publication of Clarke's book before publication by over 3 months (which kind of hurts the whole "he's timing it to be political" arguement).

Of course there are. But Condi can still testify and invoke her executive privelage during the testimony itself when she comes to an answer that she feels would somehow jeopardize national security. She could simply say "I can't tell you that," answer what she can and move on to the next question. You have to admit, it doesn't make her look very good that she can tell her side to a million talk shows, with NO rebuttal whatsoever, where she won't ever be held accountable for what she says, whereas if she were under oath the opposite would be true.

[edit - Never mind - it looks like she caved. ]

If not under oath, perhaps a face-to-face debate with Clarke is in order? Like I said - if he's so full of sh*t, it should be easy to prove. And by doing so would make Bush look incredibly good and Kerry look incredibly bad. So why are they panicking?

Just mind your manners, and we'll be fine.

[ March 30, 2004, 17:58: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Sorry DR, but the "loyalty" claim stinks. No one should show loyalty to anyone for a single second if they are complicit in a single death, never mind more than 3,000.

 

I will remember you said that. Oh boy, will I ever.

 

@Chandos

Leave it to you to use my example to take a weak shot. Really lame. Even for you.

You were wrong in the first place. Just admit it. Time is liberal.

 

Kind of like how Bush showed loyalty to all of the high ranking members of various intelligence agencies?

By keeping all of them on, Bush basically said that those responsible did the best they could given the resources and policies in place at that time. If true, then it further suggests that the resources and policies in place were inadequate for the task at hand, which ultimately means that culpability would fall on Bush - and that's why there's concern in the administration. It's not good if you "War President" was in a way responsible for the start of the War on Terror in the first place.

 

I totally agree that the resources and policies in place at the time were inadequate. Of course since 9/11 was only 8 months into the Bush Administration the blame for that would fall on the previous Administration, oh and on the people in Congress who voted for bill after bill cutting spending on intelligence (read J. Kerry).

If you will do some additional research you will find that Bush was already starting to ramp up intelligence spending, and aggressively pursued expansion of our intelligence capabilities after the attack.

 

JF - What's lame is that you chose some sorry examples. But not to worry too much. You can say "I told you so," when Time votes John Kerry Person of the Year in 2005. Have a nice day, Jack.

 

Blaming the Clinton administration is not all that relevant, seeing as how the attack didn't occur on his watch. Regardless of what his policies were, they were evidently good enough to prevent a terrorist attack within the U.S. for the 8 years he was steering the ship. If we are to believe that terror was a "top priority" for the Bush administration, 8 months should have been adequate time to get something on the boards. From what Clarke says, the plan they released one week before the attacks was nearly identical to the plan he had submitted several months earlier (I think it was submitted in March) - why the delays?

 

They were? What about the first attack on the World Trade center?