THANK YOU!!!! This is EXACTLY why I put quotes around the word investigation when talking about this. This is why I'm so skeptical. Because at the end of the day I'm left questioning the integrity and veracity of every single one of these people...and we're nowhere near going, "aha....if we start doing it this way, we'll be safer." It's a political show. End of story.
Did anybody happen to tape the two days of hearings? I tried to catch what I could on C-SPAN after work, but didn't get very much. I did find this article in today's Washington Post interesting... ----------------------------------------- Clarke Stays Cool as Partisanship Heats Up By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 25, 2004; Page A01 The Sept. 11 commission shed its bipartisan spirit and turned a Senate hearing room into a courtroom yesterday for the testimony of Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism chief-turned-Bush administration whistle-blower. Democrats, prosecuting President Bush for ignoring terrorism before the 2001 attacks, used the newly famous Clarke as their star witness. Republican commission members -- armed with fresh information on Clarke released by the White House yesterday through Fox News -- played defense lawyers determined to discredit the witness as a closet Democrat. "You've got a real credibility problem," Republican commissioner John F. Lehman told Clarke, the author of a new book eviscerating Bush's terrorism policies. "And because of my real genuine long-term admiration for you," he continued, "I hope you'll resolve that credibility problem, because I'd hate to see you become totally shoved to one side during a presidential campaign as an active partisan selling a book." Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey sought to build the witness's credibility and objected to the Fox News report one Republican commissioner was using to undermine Clarke. "Well, Mr. Clarke, let me say at the beginning that everything that you've said today and done has not damaged my view of your integrity," the former Nebraska senator declared. There was good reason for the tension. If the critique presented by Clarke, who left the Bush White House after two years, is to be accepted, a key rationale for Bush's reelection has been lost. In Clarke's view, the Bush administration ignored his pleas to make terrorism a high priority before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, reacted inadequately to the attacks and then strengthened terrorists by persistently pursuing war in Iraq. Bush aides are not about to let that version stand. Shortly before the hearing, the White House violated its long-standing rules by authorizing Fox News to air remarks favorable to Bush that Clarke had made anonymously at an administration briefing in 2002. The White House press secretary read passages from the 2002 remarks at his televised briefing, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has declined to give public testimony to the commission, called reporters into her office to highlight the discrepancy. "There are two very different stories here," she said. "These stories can't be reconciled." Back at the hearing, former Illinois governor James R. Thompson, a Republican member of the commission, took up the cause, waving the Fox News transcript with one hand and Clarke's critical book in the other. "Which is true?" Thompson demanded, folding his arms and glowering down at the witness. Clarke, appearing unfazed by the apparent contradiction between his current criticism and previous praise, spoke to Thompson as if addressing a slow student. "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he explained. "I've done it for several presidents." With each effort by Thompson to highlight Clarke's inconsistency -- "the policy on Uzbekistan, was it changed?" -- Clarke tutored the commissioner about the obligations of a White House aide. Thompson, who had far exceeded his allotted time, frowned contemptuously. "I think a lot of things beyond the tenor and the tone bother me about this," he said. During a second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the subject, questioning Clarke's "standard of candor and morality." "I don't think it's a question of morality at all; I think it's a question of politics," Clarke snapped. Thompson had to wait for Sept. 11, 2001, victims' relatives in the gallery to stop applauding before he pleaded ignorance of the ways of Washington. "I'm from the Midwest, so I think I'll leave it there," he said. Moments later, Thompson left the hearing room and did not return. It was a masterful bit of showmanship by the former bureaucrat who became a household name in the past week with his charges about Bush. Though more prominent personalities testified in the commission's two-day public hearings, the longtime foreign policy bureaucrat stole the show. With two dozen cameras recording his every twitch, Clarke disarmed the crowd by starting with an apology to those who lost loved ones on Sept. 11, 2001. "Your government failed you," he said. "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you." Democrats teed up easy questions for him. Commissioner Timothy J. Roemer got Clarke, who served in four administrations, to say that there was "no higher" priority than terrorism under President Bill Clinton, but the Bush administration "either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem." Kerrey did his part to make Clarke a hero. "I feel badly," he told the witness, "because I presume that you are at the moment receiving terrible phone messages and e-mail messages." Democrat Jamie S. Gorelick continued the praise. After one Clarke pronouncement, she replied: "Well, that's a very sobering statement, particularly from someone whose reputation is as aggressive as your reputation is." Republican commissioners labored to change that reputation. Fred F. Fielding implied that Clarke may have perjured himself when he spoke to a congressional investigation into the attacks but did not raise complaints about Bush's Iraq policy then. Clarke, though the back of his neck and head were a burning red, replied coolly: "I wasn't asked, sir." The gallery drew quiet when Lehman questioned Clarke. "I have genuinely been a fan of yours," he began, and then he said how he had hoped Clarke would be "the Rosetta Stone" for the commission. "But now we have the book," Lehman said, suggesting it was a partisan tract. Clarke was ready for that challenge. "Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raised it," he said, noting that he registered as a Republican in 2000 and served President Ronald Reagan. "The White House has said that my book is an audition for a high-level position in the Kerry campaign," Clarke said. "So let me say here, as I am under oath, that I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration, should there be one." When Clarke finished his answer, there was a long pause, and the gallery was silent. Lehman smiled slightly and nodded. He had no further questions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22218-2004Mar24.html
John Kerry, speaking to Tom Brokaw during one of the primary debates: "That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today. But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world..." so, was he mistaken then (or "lying," to use current democratic definitions) or is he mistaken on his website?
This is a hyper-politicized blame-game which is going to destroy careers and reputations while others try to climb upon the scap head as self-appointed Kings of the Mountain. The genius (excuse the word) of the 9/11 attacks was the simple brutality of them. It was done with people who had been roaming freely in North America for years. It was accomplished with hijacked commercial transportation.
What kind of question is that? I know where you are going with that innuendo, but the important thing here and now is that we have a FULL-BLOWN WORLDWIDE TERROR PROBLEM. I don't think it is time to try and build up political capital.
Maybe if we didn't have idiots trying to build up political capital in the 1990s, we could've done more to combat the problem. There are very serious questions that need to be answered as to why and how 9/11 occured. Unfortunately, it's not as simple to say that people flew planes into buildings and fields. It's imperative to find out how they got to that point and fix it. To you, that's builiding political capital. To me, that's attempting to save the next 3,000 people that may die at the hands of Al Qaeda.
This quote illustrates why I have a problem with the Bush ads. It is not the time to build political capital on the backs of the 3000 that died or the heroic firefighters who searched the rubble and cleaned up ground zero.
McMark: 9/11 changed everything for everybody. Who would even begin to deny that? RM95: Are you blaming the impeachment proceedings for Clinton's inability/failure/lack of choosing to ferret out terrorists? I've not blamed Clinton for 9/11. I don't think most do. They do retaliate with that kind of retort when there is an attempt to heap the blame upon the Bush Admin. andymoon: If you are in an unfair fight, are you going to fight fair or unfair? \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I heard a great point made this morning by a caller into the Laura Ingraham Show. If terrorism was at the forefront of the Clinton-Gore Administration as Clarke indicates, why did not any kind of anti-terrorist platform lead the way (or at least be prominent) in Gore's presidential campaign?
First, let me give you credit for going back and finding a quote. Well done. Second, I don't think he's mistaken at all. The website quotation states that he sees all 3 fronts as part of strategy against terrorism, and Finally, I note that even this passage is diametrically opposed to your initial mischaracterization of Kerry's anti-terror policy, which you said was thus: when in fact, the most favorable quote to your view that you could find said this: " The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time." A far cry from 'purely'
No, but it couldn't have helped. And even when Clinton did do something, it was dismissed by Republicans as "wagging the dog". I was simply pointing out that at least the political capital that anyone is attempting to gain by 9/11 hearings (which, I believe is dishonest and extremely cynical...borderline slanderous) has to do with investigating the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history rather than the most infamous hummer ever given. As the USA, we should be fighting fair. If we start to fight unfair, we can't really criticize those who don't fight fair. We're better than terrorists. Why is this a great point? It would be an excellent point if Al Gore was our president today. He's not. If nothing else, this is just badmouthing a Democrat for, what's it called, political captial.
Did anybody notice this bizarre bit of homage? apparently Will has been talking to Fred Kaplan about this bbs
well i mis-remembered the quote. he said "primarily" not "purely." different? sure, but it's a difference of a few degrees, not in kind, and 9/11 dramatically demonstrates the effectiveness of that approach, as indeed, does clarke's testimony which you have been endlessly crowing about. so do you agree with clarke, or with kerry? and it's important to note, clarke is not second guessing the strategy of going after the tailban the way we did after 9/11, he's questioning the timing. kerry thinks the strategy is fundamentally flawed.
Kerry doesn't think that "the strategy" of going after the taliban on 9-11 is fundamentally flawed; he's voiced support for multilateral coalitions all the way. As have I, as have most Americans. Again, you fail to mention the 800 lb Gorilla: Iraq....Clarke and Kerry think the strategy of unilateral wars (based on lousy intelligence) with dubious threats while ignoring the larger threats is questionable. The centerpiece of Clarke's allegations are the Iraq ones, as they are hte most valid on a going forward basis Again, this is the same answer that Clarke gave yesterday: Question: Why didn't you denoucne the administration's war on terror in 2002 or to the committee earlier like you did in your book? Answer: Because nobody asked me about Iraq in 2002.
yet he claims Bush "confronted" him about Iraq in 2001, was "obsessed with iraq" from the moment his inauguration. which is it? if he was obsessed, why did it take 26 months for them to attack? but you're correct, the big division is between those of us who believe the iraq war is absolutely essential to the WOT and those who don't. interestingly, a new WaPo/ABC poll suggest most americans agree we need to stay yhe course on iraq: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20184/news_detail.asp not exactly parallel with those who agree Iraq is part of the WOT, but on point nonetheless.
Because it took that long to get the troops in place and build up the necessary political capital. I don't really think it's that disputable; here's some of the things on the agenda for an NSC meeting that was held in January of 2001: "Political-Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq" doesn't that jump out at you a bit? Of the five attachements to this document, which refers to a meeting on "Gulf" policy, not Iraq policy, four of them,from their title, appear to deal exclusively with Iraq....doesn't that tend to validate Clarke's (and O'Neill's) assertions that the Administration was obsessed with Iraq?
