I agree completely with that statement and we can further extend it to the rest of the world. Some of the guys where in Germany, Canada and and and…It’s a problem the whole world has including the arab world and we need to fight this thing together.
What I don’t agree is not the question about the Terrorists, that was a clear cutt from the whole world, everybody was on the same page Sep/12, everybody tried to help including France and Germany. There was a golden opportunity to bring everybody together and fight the opponend named Terrorists.
Going after Irak however, because of unproven links to Terrorists, WMD…that didn’t make sence and it still doesn’t after none of the above where found there. Those are two seperate issues.
I do agree that everybody is to blame about the terrorism. But for the war in Iraq? Now way, the whole world sayd no, but they did go anyhow, them to blame!
Nope, I’ll wait for the mini-series. Seriously, though, I think most of these vanity books are fiction anyway, written in a way to make the author look good (and make them money). Clark seems to be holding himself out as some kind of whistleblower, but the fact that he only came out with these “earth-shattering” allegations after his book was published makes me question his credibility. He should have a comfortable retirement, though.
Can anyone here honestly say that they would not have been suspicious of pres. Clintons motives if he had started more intensive military operations in the mid-east? Wagging the dog and all that.
I don’t think very many people took terrorism seriously much before 9/11. Myself included.
That’s not true, he wanted to come out with it but was not allowed, the book was blocked and Clark went on to fight untill the book was released.
We are not talking about some guy, we’re talking about a guy that spent 20 years in the White House. Again, most of the facts in his book are very easy to check, why does nobody check them and tell us weather they are true or not?
He mentions papers, pictures, movies…should be trivial to check, no?
I have been in and out of the country enough times to know that they are #1 NOT wearing an “FBI” - there is a little something about “Dept of Treasury” on their badge however…and were NOT checking names from a list…of course maybe it is because I am white? I can tell you that AFTER 9-11 it is a whole new ball game at customs in any airport…and I even noticed it on a flight from the St. Thomas! I was even stopped in an air port on an airline because they had record that “I” was in Africa…and how am I on a plane in the US if I am in Africa? Well, my father was in Africa and we have the same name…not sure how they put it togther - I am comfortable that they did however.
That discussion doesn’t lead anywhere, it’s a discussion of believe or not believe and you and I are both free to believe what we want. But there are some things that are not up to believe, facts. Clark mentions lot’s of (what he believes) are facts. I as a reader can’t check if those are really true or not, I’m just entitled to believe or not believe, as it is with the whole rest, Bush, Rums…Irak…But the paper, movies, pictures mentioned in Clarks book are easy to check and I’m asking why nobody does that and lets the world know if they are fact or lies. Because then it’s not up to us anymore to believe or disbelieve, then we know.
PS: I don’t have a US pasport, live in Colorado and have more than 15 immigration stamps in my passport and 3 visa renewals, don’t teach me about international travel please!
You and I may not see eye to eye on many different issues, but I appreciate the manner in which you express your opinions without name calling (or worse). On this issue, I am with you. Everyone always wants to blame someone. Clarke may be in it for the money, Rice is definitely trying to cover herself and her boss, and all of the commision memebers are playing politics. I think this whole thing is turning into a referendum on the Bush Administration. It seems clear to me even form some of the responses here that most people have already judged the players and refuse to look at this objectively. I’m trying to, but I am biased as well.
Jesus man WAKE UP!!! She WAS NOT ALLOWED! This was not her call to say no, it was the call of the founders of this country and how the branches of Govt works. Dont blame her - blame John Hancock if you want to blame anyone
Take a chilll pill. All the constitutional experts I heard said that there wasn’t anything barring her from testifying. In addition,the 9/11 Commission isn’t a part of Congress (the administration was trying to say this was a “separation of powers” issue), but rather was set up by the Executive branch.
In Reply To One thing really annoys me though. I have yet to hear her admit/acknowledge/assert that her position has any responsibilites.
How is she at fault for the actions of others? Is my post her fault?
Whoa there!! I’m not talking about accepting responsibility for others actions. Positions have roles and responsibilities. I imagine that some of the responsibilities of her position include tasking others, holding meetings, making assessments. From her testimony, I got the impression that assessments were the role of others, calling and holding meetings was the role of others, tasking resources was the role of others, making decisions was the role of others. I got the impression that she was just a cog in the machine. Now, of course that’s not the case, so she should stand up and say what her role was. Not to find fault, but to help people understand.
Gee, how about if the Executive branch sets up an investigation and starts calling members of Congress under oath in public. Do you think there might be a few complaints then? After all, all the Congressional leaders were in office the entire time. “So Mr. Kerry, member of the intelligence committee, what did you know and when did you know it?” The Founders provided for separation of powers to prevent these exact scenarios. It should be respected.
I don’t think Condi should have testified at all. As expected, she hit it out of the park. Having her ultimately testify was probably the Whitehouse plan all along. The charade just forced more attention on one of the Administrations brightest stars.
If there is a more intelligent or more articulate person in public office that Ms. Rice, would someone let me know who it is. Love that woman. I hope she gets tapped for VP at the last minute and runs for the big job in 2008.
"That is a good point Copernicus – the problem here is that in the land of the free we don’t have the Gestapo checking everyone who wants to waltz into our country. "
Gee, how about if the Executive branch sets up an investigation and starts calling members of Congress under oath in public.
Since you don’t bother to indicate what it is that you are replying to, I’ll guess that you take issue with my indicating there was no legal reason for Dr. Rice to not testify. Your analogy is flawed, in that the current situation is that a commission (9/11) was set up by one branch (Executive), and wants to question under oath a staff member in that branch; your example is that of a commission set up under one branch (Executive) that wishes to get members of another branch (Legislative) to testify under oath. See the difference?
Having her ultimately testify was probably the Whitehouse plan all along
Oh, I give up. If you really, really believe this, you are really out of touch with reality.
By the way, by her own admission and the statements of others, Dr. Rice is an expert on the “old war”, meaning our relationship with the Soviet Union; her knowledge of terrorism was lacking when she came to office. You know the saying “give a child a hammer, and everything starts looking like a nail”? It applies in her case, where she (and others in the administration) looked at everything according to their own framework of knowledge (which was not anti-terrorism).
Just for the record, and to be entirely intellectual honest, I will say up front that I voted for Ronald Reagan twice, George H.W. Bush twice, and George W. Bush once, but that will be twice come November 2.
Our country has been attacked by Islamic terrorists any number of times under presidential administrations dating back to Jimmy Carter (Iranian embassy), Ronald Reagan (Beirut barracks), and on and on. We have never, until Afghanistan after 9/11, taken a credible response to any of these attacks–that is, to hit them where they organize and train, to go after their funding sources, to root them out within our borders, etc.
This entire affair is an indictment of our entire governments’ number one constitutionally charged duty–TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CITIZENS AND INTERESTS OF THE SOVERIEGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES–under the past five administrations.
To blame Condi Rice, the FBI, George W. Bush, the INS, etc., is a cop out. What were Bill Clinton’s top priorities when he came into office? Putting gays in the military and health care. Not terrorism. Same blame can go to every other president. Why? Because we, as citizens are too busy voting for people who will give us more benefits so we can live our cushy sorry little lives like the bunch of sniveling whiners we are. Wake up and smell the coffee. Learn about the world. It is full of bad people who want to kill us. Who gives a crap about free medical care when you’re dead?
Funny, I’m a dyed in the wool Democrat (registered Republican when I was 18 to vote Reagan OUT of the Primaries, didn’t work…) and I agree with some of this.
I am not so cynical as to think that the majority of Americans vote strictly for their own self interest and entitlements. However, I think it hasn’t been emphasized enough that pre 9/11 we, as a nation, didn’t have the stomach for going into foreign countries and assasinating people, even terrorist leaders. We have really changed and it’s hard to remember what we were like before. The fact that we were not more aggressive after other terrorist attacks (not on US soil) was partly a mandate from the American people.
I think the more interesting question is whether or not Bush was preoccupied with going into Iraq and why.
"This entire affair is an indictment of our entire governments’ number one constitutionally charged duty–TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CITIZENS AND INTERESTS OF THE SOVERIEGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES–under the past five administrations.
To blame Condi Rice, the FBI, George W. Bush, the INS, etc., is a cop out."
I agree. For that matter, to blame any particular person or group is also a cop out. Anyone interseted in this whole thing for the “blame game” is severly misguided. We need to understand what we can change and do better to help prevent future 911s. The fact of the matter is that there are systemic issues that need to be resolved.
That said, one can, however, judge the performance of an administration or official based on the decisions they did or didn’t make and the actions they did or didn’t take. As responsible voters, we ought to do this.
-Edited to remove a sentence that missed a point in tri_bri2’s post.-
I don’t think you are right about the structure of the commission. It is full of ex Congressional types including what’s his name right out of the Watergate committee. No Executive branch official like Dr. Rice has testified in such a way since the Pearl Harbor commission.
I am not out of touch at all. I expected the exact scenario that developed. Howls of protest to get Rice to testify, leading to a dramatic confrontation, leading to her hitting it out of the park under the glare of publicity the Whitehouse could not have otherwise generated. Lot’s of publicity about Rice, and you won’t hear a word from Kerry for days.
This was just like the time Bush suckered Congress into demanding yet one more debate on Iraq prior to invasion. He ultimately gave them their request and the process played out well for him. Lots of publicity about the upcoming war, not a word about the troubled economy. Oh yeah, big win in the 2002 elections. It is just like the girl you keep chasing until she catches you.
These guys are playing chess up there, not checkers. They are thinking a lot further ahead than you give them credit for. Give some thought about who is really out of touch. Many of the members of that 9/11 panel come to mind.
This is a major problem of the Democratic party. They believe their own BS about how stupid Bush and company are. They howl in completely predictable fashion and wind up walking into every trap.
“I think the more interesting question is whether or not Bush was preoccupied with going into Iraq and why.”
That’s an easy one - Texas Justice. Saddam f**ked with his dad - tried to have him killed. There is only one thing you can do in that case - and that’s finish the job that 41 started but didn’t finish - ousting Saddam’s regime and either killing or capturing the man himself (though killing would have been preferred). I think deep down, we all know this is the real reason for the war, so debating it seems pointless.
BTW, I really have no problem with this rationale and support the war in Iraq 100%, and while it started as a totally separate conflict from the war on terror, they are now one, and should be fought and won with all the military, intelligence and political might we have.
