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

Remove all ads!

And can we expect you to come down from your partisan dope? What's the point in changing the subject to dig out an old sock, something Kerry said some 4 years ago?

Kerry's statement implies that he then thought Iraq was behind the attack on the USS Cole. Republicans at that time said just the same stuff. That was what then about everyone guessed, the lack of evidence nonwithstanding. Now that it is overly clear that Saddam didn't have anything to do with Al Qaeda no one, Kerry included, would seriously repeat such a statement, except maybe crazies like Dick Cheney, Laurie Myrloie or maybe Ann Coulter.

Didn't Bush utter something about a humble foreign policy without those overseas deployments that took place under Clinton during his election campaign, only to declare his new Grand Strategy, basically your standard issue Project Hubris, based on agressive preemption just two years later?

Clarke sais in the essence not that Bush din't too much focus on Iraq, he said that Bush didn't understand the threat of terror and dealt with it in a disastrous, counterprodcutive way. Bush's piss poor political judgement and lack of understanding is what the critique is about.

And that is not a smear campaign but a simple and objective critique based on what we know today. Bush's approach to terrorism made the problem worse, and didn't solve it.

 

@ Darkwolf

I love it that one quote from one guy 4 years ago, with no link or the rest of the comments to provide context, is apparantly enough to debunk mountains of evidence that the Bush administration had a major hard-on for Iraq, and therefore invalidates all criticism from the Democrats.

You're just so precious.

 

DR,

Re-read my post, especially the first part of it.

Now where does it state that the quote debunks anything? It says that it tears a little bit away from an arguement. It is what it is, don't put words in my mouth and try to make it more than that, and please take your patronizing

somewhere else.

It is simply a statement made by a Senator from the Democratic party that shows that the entire US governmnet was suspicious of Iraq.

As far as it being 4 years ago, it is only 11 months prior to 9/11/01, and only 4 months before the Clinton administration turned over its final security report to the Bush administration, a report that has no mention of Al Queda in it. That makes it relevant

I love how the Bush administration is responsible for the actions of a terrorist organization that the Clinton administration was so concerned about that they discussed it every day, but forgot to mention it to the incoming Administration. Can you say complicity, because I can define what "is" means.

Ragusa,

You are mistaken as to the purpose of the 9/11 Commission. Its purpose is to see if anything could have reasonably been done to prevent 9/11, and supposedly to make sure we not repeat any mistakes we may have made.

See comments to DR above regarding the time frame of the comment from Bob Kerry.

Unfortunately after 8 years of cuts to our intelligence agencies (cuts that John Kerry thought were far too insufficient), Bush didn't have a whole lot to go on, as it takes a little bit more than 8 months to rebuild those agencies.

As a holdover from the previous administration, and in the position he was in, he likely was not privy to all of the discussions that the President had regarding terrorism, or all the planning that may are may not have occured, a fact that greatly deteriorates the value of his OPINION, because nothing he has presented has proven anything. Additionally, one of Clarke's primary points is (paraphrasing) "Bush was too obsessed with Iraq to see the issue clearly".

The 9/11 Committies assigned task has nothing to do with investigating what happened after 9/11. The fact that certain members of that committee can't stop using the committee to take shots at the policies of the Administration regarding Iraq proves that they are in fact using it as a platform from which to broadcast their "smear campaign".

I can see your point about things being worse since Iraq was liberated, at least for Germany and her allies that were against the war, since they lost billions in oil contracts. As for the US, not a single major terrorist attack against US interests outside of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2.5 years, and you have already read my arguments for the liberation of Iraq elsewhere, so I will not repeat them here.

Finally, it is not "partisan dope". It is belief that the Democrats will do anything, including sell this country out to any interest or expose it to any danger to get back in power. John Kerry is the worst of the candidates that were running for the Democratic nomination. At least Edwards (who would I would have given serious consideration to) has been consistent in his stances, and the rest didn't stand a chance against Bush. I know, Kerry is not supposed to be consistent, he is supposed to do what the majority wants (DR or Chandos “Politics 101” comment a while back), but that is wrong IMO. The US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. As such, our founding fathers believed that we should vote for people who would represent us to our best interests, something that cannot be counted on in a simple majority rules environment. I am not going to research it for you, but anyone who has studied Jefferson or Franklin's writings can confirm that both of these men believed a true democracy to be as repressive as a monarchy. This is why I am vehemently against J. Kerry, and anyone else who doesn’t have the consistency to stand for what they believe is right.

Bush has his own warts, but I have discovered that those are of little interest to the people who post here, so they are not discussed, and thus you do not get an opportunity to hear my frustrations with Mr. "spend us into prosperity, grow more government, provide more entitlements to those who don't want them, legalize everyone who entered this nation illegally, legislate morality, and ban free speech" Bush.

The Democrats are not campaigning on the issues that they can really get Bush on. Of course they can’t attack him for the things they can hurt him on, because if they were in power, they would do most of the things I knock Bush for, only to a greater degree.

 

Well it is quite clear I am not as informed as many of the heavyweights in this ring...but here goes...

I watched some portion of the hearing with Condaleeza Rice on Thursday. I was not too impressed. I believe she used it as a platform for selling the ideology of her boss...and that is understandable given the political undertow of the hearings. I was also not impressed by the interviewing panel. I was annoyed at one man in particular. I wish I could remember his name. He was a Democratic senator with grey hair and appeared in his late fourties to mid fiftees. He would laugh and sneer at the National Security Advisor while she was speaking. It is completely unacceptable to address a woman of such standing in a manner so juvenile.

As Condaleeza herself said, by definition she has failed in her duties. However, she is still the woman charged with protecting us from future attacks. A woman entrusted with such a task deserves to be spoken to with respect.

I believe Clark had political motives for his book. He was a high ranking government employee with elected bosses. He disagreed with the policies and actions of his elected boss and then wrote it in book format. A perfectly acceptable thing to do in our society but lets not forget that it is of course inherently political.

I believe Clark heavily disagreed with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Without Iraq, I do not think this book would have been written. I agree with Clark on Iraq. To me Iraq seems like a mistake of American political hubris with which we will be enburdened for a long, long time.

Regardless, I do not feel like Condaleeza Rice or the rest of the Bush administration should be held responsible for 9/11 in the negligent sense. What they should be held accountable for is the crackhead-with-a-blank-check spending spree our government now adopts as fiscal policy. They should be held accountable for their inability to garner foreign support in the the means of dollars and troops that would have made the Iraq nation-building experiment a success. Having not won that foreign support, they should now be held responsible for their lack of humility in thinking we could accomplish this alone.

I hope the Democrats stop pushing this political "hot button" of 9/11 because it is in fact wired to nothing of substance. I hope they instead attack the current administation for their possibly less visible but farther reaching and much graver errors.

 

Huh? What has the purpose of the commission to do with if Clarke is right or wrong?

 

I think Late Night Thinker hit on some important points here.Like him I felt the way they questioned Rice crossed the line.It seemed that suddenly the commision became very partison and determined to get her to admit that 9/11 was their fault.

If they had questioned her in a more adult manner,I would have alot more faith in what they are trying to do.For her part I thought she did her job well.She defended the president(which is her job)in an articulate and intellegent manner,even when under attack.She seems to me to be a formidable women.

I just dont think trying to pin blame is going to work here.To think the goverment can protect us from everything is just not realistic.

One day partison politics may be set aside in the interest of whats best for America,but that day seems a long way off.

 

Ragusa,

The commission isn't supposed to be about any one person. It's alleged purpose is to make discover what mistakes the US gov't might have made prior to 9/11, and what we can learn from the events leading up to 9/11, to prevent another attack.

I say alleged because it has turned into a witch-hunt. I won't even try to convince anyone as to who is at fault for that because it is too arbitrary. Each person will have to look at the actions of the commission members and judge for themselves.

 

Actually, we should set the record straight. As an example of this here in Texas we vote on changes to our Constitution directly as well as other important laws. And there are other places, such as CA, where the voters vote directly on the issues themselves - they are often referred to as Propostitions. A situation where voters vote directly on laws or changes to the laws that affect their lives, and I would say that that is a pretty good example of a democracy, or democratic government in action.

The one thing that the Founding Brothers did agree on (and anyone who has bothered to actually read their letters would discover that they disagreed on many issues) was that the People were sovereign. The government they crafted was based on this ideal.

This is, of course, from the Declaration. Jefferson has laid out the ideal of the People's Sovereignty - not that of the government's as you seem to suggest. The government derives its power from the People not the reverse. "Organizing its powers in such form," does not exclude a democracy.

Here's more:

This is a direct quote from Jefferson from his letters. He qualifies his statement carefully, by saying "well-informed." Near the end of his life he was very much engaged in his pet project, which was the planning and building of the University of Virginia. He and many of the other Founders, including Washington, with his dreams of a National University, believed that the surivial of the new nation depended on a well-educated, well-informed electorate. In his Farewell Address, Washington asked Hamilton, (who actually drafted the document) to make this a strong point. Hamilton let Washington down a bit on this by tucking it into the middle of the address, and giving it only a passing emphasis.

I bring this into our discussion because it goes to the heart of the matter that concerned more than a few of the Founders. You are right that they believed that those with the right credintials and qualifications should govern for the People. But for the Founders this would mean those who are well-educated and informed. Crucial to this are two things: a free press and a large system of education with access for a large number of Americans, which we now have, probably beyond the dreams of the Founders.

What is ironic is that both are blasted by the current "Republican" party. According to them we now know that teachers in public schools are "terrorists" and that the Press is wholly run by "Liberals." Here's another Jefferson quote:

Washington read newpapers constantly, every one he could get his hands on. And that despite knowing that they were at times "unreliable." Jefferson loved books: "I cannot live without books," he wrote to Adams in 1815. And he spent nearly a life's fortune on them. But on just about most other matters they did not agree on much. In fact, at the end of his life Washington refused any correspondence with Jefferson at all. One should be a bit careful when painting the "Founding Fathers" with a broad brush, as if there was some whole-hearted agreement among all the players involved in the crafting of our government.

But Jefferson and John Adams had a running argument near the end of their lives. And for those of you who don't know this, they both passed away on the same day: The Fourth of July, 1826, which was the Fiftieth Anniversary of the signing. And within just a few hours of each other. Nothing could have been more fitting for the two old founding patriots, especially after regaining their close friendship.

But back to the argument. Jefferson had always been concerned that Adams was a closet elitist, and that Adams would have preferred to see an American version of British aristocracy governing America. This suspected notion horrified Jefferson. The charge against Adams was unfair, but it showed how badly Jefferson fretted over the notion that aristocracy would rear its ugly head in the American governing process. But I think in Adams' mind there was a sort of elite (not born or titled aristocracy) that were educated and through their own efforts a natural class of men who should govern. But in the end Jefferson offers this about their differences on the issues that divided them:

They often did not agree, but Jefferson agrees that they can disagree and both still love their country. A valuable lesson from Thomas Jefferson.

Here's a few more quotes on Jefferson and majority rule:

Here's one more from our Thomas Jefferson 101:

What we see here in the mind of Jefferson is that the majorty rules, but with certain qualifying conditions. The rights of the individual are always of equal importance to Jefferson.

[ April 10, 2004, 08:22: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

It appears as though both the Democratic and Republican members of the 9/11 Commision are now stating that the search for culpability is leading away from the Administration and toward a fundamental breakdown in communication and cooperation between the CIA and the FBI.

As far as Bush goes, this will probably become a non-issue. A greater issue, as far as his re-election is concerned, is whether it is perceived by the American people that he lied to bring on the attack on Iraq

 

Entertainingly, the fishing expedition that is the 9/11 Commission (come on, partisan hacks like Jamie Gorelick and Jim Edgar on an objective investigation?) has hit a snag.

The much-lamented "wall" between the FBI and CIA -- a wall which was just explained to me in detail by one of the CIA guys who writes the PDB -- was the handiwork of... (wait for it)... Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.

Attorney General John Ashcroft showed up with the memo in which Gorelick codified the wall. Now whom are we going to blame?

Yeah, the 9/11 Commission does have to determine whether or not Dick Clarke is lying -- because Clarke is saying (well, he's saying now, in direct contradiction to what he said a couple of years ago) that Bush didn't do anything about the war on terror. That's exactly the sort of issue that the 9/11 Commission is supposed to be looking into.

The end game, especially now that a smoking gun has been found in the possession of the Clinton Administration, will be a standard DC whitewashing.

And Chandos, you've got it largely right on Jefferson, but your swipe at Republicans are incorrect. While many conservatives, including myself, think that education is best handled by private schools and/or homeschooling, the Bush Administration has jacked up spending on education by a ridiculous amount. And, while the majority of the mainstream press outside of talk radio and Fox News is indeed liberal, that has nothing to do with a free press.

 

Supposedly now Jamie Gorelick has refused to step down from her position from the committee.

HMMMM. Maybe one of the attorneys on the board can give us a description of "conflict of interest", or even "the appearance of conflict of interest", and the proper responses to such events. I am betting it will involve Jamie's stepping down from the committee.

If this committee were really about preventing future attacks, it would have Jamie take the oath and tell us why she wrote her memo. I am betting that she had a valid reason that would totally exonerate her, but that it might have far reaching political ramifications.

So in the meantime, let the witch hunt continue.

 

Uh, uh. There we are again. The Dem bias. When I get to hear that tale once more I'll get spots. How about this:

The Democrat A sais Bush made a mistake. A Republican B sais A said so because it is in A's interest to claim Bush made mistakes (like: isn't he a political opponent?/ or as for Clarke: didn't he write a book he wants to see sold? *).
By that B implies that A is wrong when he said Bush made a mistake. Sounds familiar?

But then, did B in any way counter A's point? No.

That's a classical fallacy, a circumstantial ad hominem attack - Clarke got that aplenty. But why seems no one to bother dealing with his points? Too difficult?

When a Democrat, and Clarke isn't even one, even in an election year, sais Bush has made a mistake, that may well be true. Even Bush himself is confident to have made some.

* it also works that way: B could claim that A has in the past repeatedly criticised Bush, suggesting he has a certain bias against him anyway, implying his critique isn't rational.
Just as silly, but then, this sh*t works, if you don't look too close. It's a classical manipulation technique.

[ April 16, 2004, 18:25: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The fact of the matter is, people like Darkwolf will strain themselves to find any reason whatsoever to put this commision, or anyone critical of the Bush administration, in a bad light because it gives them a reason to dismiss them as liars. They don't care about the search for truth. They'd rather spend their time discrediting the people who are coming forward rather than disprove the things they are actually saying.

As I pointed out in a previous post to Darkwolf on the first page (which apparantly he didn't read), making unfounded and asenine statements like "Clarke is a willing tool of the DNC," statements that are baseless and counterproductive, all they're doing is giving themselves an excuse to keep believing what they want to believe. In this case, that the terrorist threat against us is all somehow the fault of liberals, that liberals are trying to blame everything on the conservatives, and that the Democrats will do anything to make Bush look bad, because they're all hellbent on power and greed. God forbid they actually care about our country doing the right thing. Hint: it's not what we're doing now.

 

You are wrong DR. Start a thread about the stupid drug plan that Bush pushed through and see how fast I pile on him. Start a thread on how idiotic it is to throw good money after bad in the "none left behind" program and watch me tear Bush to shreds. Start a thread on the "war on illegal drugs" and see how little support I give Bush. Start a thread on the FCC and how Powell is Bush's little ***** and I will jump right in the fray.

The fact is, I believe in the war and I don't believe that Bush had nearly the opportunities that Clinton had to take care of Osama. I believe that the 9/11 commission is more about the next election and political face time than it is about protecting people of this nation (Democrats and Republicans are just as guilty in this). I believe that Kerry is a slave to the polls, and that he will be far worse for this nation than Bush. You disagree with all of those, so you attack me personally.

Feel free to keep it up if it makes you feel better.

 

Apparantly a little clarification and self-defense is in order, and then I promise I won't stray from the topic again, and will henceforth watch my wording so that my attacks are directed exclusively at arguements. I also don't think my "attack" was a personal one, which I'll explain as well.

Comments from Darkwolf thoughout this thread include:

In this thread, Darkwolf, you have taken every opportunity to chip away at not only Clarke's credibility, but any of the Democratic members of the commission. And Shralp, as well, said above:

Come on, guys - you really think you're being fair and objective? I see your criticisms of the commission as completely one sided, and IMO it is a very fair assertion, for a number of reasons.

You question the panel's objectivity and claim the Democratic members of the commission are "witch-hunting," yet you never say anything about how the administration has fought the commission tooth and nail, and originally wanted warmonger Henry Kissinger to head it. You rail Clarke for being a partisan hack who's counter-terrorism experience you think is greatly exaggerated, yet you have no problem with Condoleeza Rice, an expert primarily on a Cold War that doesn't exist anymore, as a perfectly competant NSA. You haven't said a word about the fact that when the commission wants a document declassified that could be potentially damaging to the administration, the White House drags their feet and whines about the diffucult process involved, yet John Ashcroft practically has declassified documents falling out of his pockets when it comes time to attack somebody (like Gorelick).

Whenever some new revelation comes to light, you chime in with "See? The commission is a sham..." without seeming to care what the other side of the coin is. Like the fact that if the commission felt Gorelick's memo actually did anything other than codify what was already standard practice (which is true) and compromised her position on the panel (which it doesn't), they could have her removed. But they won't. Which I'm sure you'll blame on the bitter partisan Democrats. If you're so objective in this case, let's hear you rail about Ashcroft trying to screw Gorelick over a memo written in 1995 outlining a policy which his own Justice Department ratified in the summer of 2001.

Throughout this thread, you haven't provided a single arguement to debunk either Clarke's or anyone else's account of the actual events that took place and evidence that has been presented. More importantly, neither has the White House, who should have ample documentation to disprove Clarke's allegations if they were bogus. Instead, you and others find any little snipet you can that casts doubt on Clarke's motives, painting him in a bad light, and brushing his testimony and insight off with a clear conscience. As I said earlier, all you've been doing is discrediting the messengers, when the message is what's important. So when I say "people like Darkwolf," I lump you into that category, quite fairly, because you're providing exactly the same line of attack as the GOP.

Now, why this isn't an attack on Darkwolf only, and very relevent to the discussion at hand:

What you and others, not only in this thread but everywhere, seem to be (I dare say intentionally) overlooking is that WHY Clarke is doing what he's doing doesn't matter. If he's right, we as a nation need to know about it. The more people scream "Partisan hack witch hunt!" the more it will cheapen the findings of the commission. Does this commission have political ramifications? Of course. Should it be going on during the election year? When a president is running his campaign almost entirely on the assertion that he can handle national defense and terrorism better than anybody else, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, you betcha.

Those who are so critical of the commission are just revealing their transparancy. If Bush is so tough on terrorism, the findings of the commission will show it, make the Democrats (especially Clinton) look weak, and forever solidify the Republicans as the keepers of safety and justice. But if he's the incompetant fraud that I think he is, it'll show that too. The panic attack from the Bushies the last 4 weeks says to me it's the latter.

Sorry if this response came off sounding like a personal attack, as apparantly the last one did. But I'm not attacking Darkwolf the person, I'm criticizing your line of arguement and reasoning which is, IMO, intellectually dishonest and inflamatory. If I'd said "Darkwolf and all the other escaped Nazi's think that...," then that would be a personal attack.

Oh, and by the way...

...should have included a smiley. Tongue in cheak. My bad.

 

Actually, I should point out the Jim Edgar is a Republican political hack. The structure of the commission was not done as something that will come up with answers, or they would have put professional investigators on it. Instead, the members are partisan hacks on both sides, who desire only to score political points. You misread my post, apparently, as I did not say that the witch hunt was solely Democratic.

Rabbit: You're putting words into my mouth re: Clarke. Condoleeza Rice is not part of the 9/11 Commission. I'm unaware of any declassification requests that have gone unanswered by the White House. Gorelick's memo clearly stated that separation should now go "beyond the law." Screaming (or typing calmly based on the fact, if you want to stop being emotional about it) "partisan hack witch hunt" is very helpful if what you're talking about is, in fact, a partisan hack witch hunt. If I thought that the 9/11 Commission was going to do something useful, I'd support it. As it is, I primarily ignore it.

Questions of Clarke's credibility are not ad hominem attacks, or at least not irrelevant ones. He has in many instances stated things that are in direct contradiction to statements by Condoleeza Rice, President Bush, VP Cheney, and others with no corroborating evidence either way. When it comes down to that, we have to assess each person's character to see whom to trust. Since Clarke has been demonstrated to contradict himself, has monetary motives, is a Democrat (he never voted for a Republican for president), etc., it seems reasonable to doubt him.

 

Evidently Reagan switched political parties without anyone noticing.

 

Well, he was a Democrat when he was Governor of California...

Just kidding Aldeth, I couldn't resist!

Of course Clarke voted for Reagan, look who ran against him. Carter and Mondale Then the democrats followed up with Dukakis? Though the parallel for the Republicans is just about as bad: Bush 41, Dole, and Bush 43. Wow, now that I think about it, Clinton was a breath of fresh air.

We HAVE to get some more people with a little personality into politics!

Sorry I am