I get the feeling if Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz & Laura Bush resigned from the administration and criticized it, basso & Richard Perle would call them a bunch of weak kneed sore losers with an agenda. Who cares what he and the other conservative bloggers think? They will rationalize every last bit no matter how damaging or direct the allegation is.
It's unbelievable how many people are attacking Clarke's character and integrity. Dude was the terrorism czar. He probably knows what he's talking about. And to call BS on his experience at the Whitehouse is absurd. He's confirming that Dubya is a meathead. End of story. Someone tell Condi Rice to stop bobbing her head when she speaks. She's got that annoying "oh no you didn't" head movement going.
It's unbelievable how many people are attacking Clarke's character and integrity. If he was such a bad apple, why didn't Bush get rid of him as soon as that became apparent. GWB has no culpability, for anything, ever.
So, basso, basically, since some of the people criticising the Bush junta may possibly have political motivations, the 'real truth' will be so obscured that it could never really be fully discovered, so let's just forget the whole thing?
speaking of clinton era efforts to effect a diplomatic solution to al queda, the commission had this to say today, via AP: "The independent commission reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks said in a preliminary report that the decision to use diplomatic rather than military options against al-Qaida allowed the Sept. 11 terrorists to elude capture years before the attacks."
and this: "The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to Osama bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, the commission's report said."
wow...i find it just excellent that we've turned this "investigation" into a political game. "they did it!!" "no, they did it!!" that's super....absolutely typical, though.
Kind of like the way you liberals do when ever anyone mentions Clinton and his "war" on terror? He was a failure and let our country down by not doing anything. All this talk about he "spent" the most money and had a "plan" to go after Al Queda, but the Bushies rejected it are total balderdash. But then again, isn't that what liberal spin is all about? Repeat the big lie until it is believed as fact. I know all of you liberals greet every little detractor of the President as if he were the most learned and brave character, but the fact of the matter is that these folks were all fired or demoted. They have an ax to grind and in the case of Clarke, with his connections to the Kerry campaign and with a stupid tome of lies to peddle, an agenda to put forth.
I'm very suspect of Clarke's motivation too, btw. Given his documented ties to Reagan and the first President Bush, I think he's probably taking it easy on the current regime. I hope the commission really roasts his registered republican ass.
What does this have to do with anything, dude? The point here is that O'Neil documents how GWB was fixated on invading Iraq from day one of his presidency, and now Clarke documents that GWB went into a Cornholio-style fit trying to tie Saddam into 9/11 immediately after the attacks. The invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. The bogus threats of WMD, the fictitious search for Nigerian uranium, Blair's 45 minute surprise, all of this was a crude smokescreen. Anyone can see that now. Anyone with any sense could see that pre-invasion.
Ahhh...I see. So by that reasoning, the only people whose take on the administration we should trust as unbiased are...the administration itself. Wonderful.
Why do you need to put "investigation" in quotes like that? I was listening to the hearings today, it didn't sound very partisan to me. THere's no indication that the bipartisan commission, headed by a Republican, has acted in a partisan manner at all throughout its tenure. Just because basso likes to use it to distract from the Clarke allegations, that means the Commission is a sham and its work is not valuable? Come on...
i guess i just don't trust it. i have not heard any of the hearings today. but i think it's politically motivated from all angles, unfortunately. in the end...in Washington...everything is politically motivated...or ultimately spun for those purposes. and that's not an indictment of one side over the other...they're both guilty, in my mind. i am also skeptical that we will learn anything of real value from this anyway...i don't see anyone from either administration getting ready to stand up and say, "hey...we screwed up...we didn't do enough." that kind of honesty simply doesn't exist in Washington, from what I can tell. I wish and hope I'm wrong.
This stuff really works on everyone gathered around the wireless there at the Jot 'em Down Store and Library, huh? Wow.
Max I tend to agree with you. It's kind of moot when the major players won't testify publicly, under oath. I hold out hope that some good will come from all this.
Max: Can you suggest an alternative? Agreed that there will likely be some partisanship at play, and you know how I feel about that, but would simply not investigating the matter be a better option? Also, forget parties for a second, in that one administration may or may not be re-elected while the other cannot, do you agree that the findings about Bush are much more significant to our future than the findings about Clinton?
You've said that for months now, but you have no evidence of it, and you admit that you haven't heard any of the hearings, and I'm guessing you probably didn't read any of the reports either. I bet you can't even name more than one committee member off the top of your head. Eventually you have to put your cyinicism aside and examine the body of evidence. Rather than just saying "Oh, they're probably just going to be partisan"; you should figure out whether or not they are. (since basso is gleefully posting passages that are critical of Clinton in another thread, I think charges of it being a liberal witchhunt ring hollow) I don't see anything controversial about its work at all. When the nation suffers a catastrophic failure in its security system, it's just common sense to figure out what went wrong, so that we can fix it. Whether or not anybody admits it, (I heard Albright today, while she said she did the best job that she could, she did acknowledge that she should have fought harder to try to invade Afghanistan earlier...and she also squarely pointed the finger at former defense secretary William Cohen ), the job of it isn't to find blame, it's to find out what went wrong. WHy wasn't info passed up the chain? Why didn't the CIA and FBI collaborate more? Why were the Saudis treated with kid gloves? Etc. It can shed some light on what happened regardless of anybody's willingness to take the blame.
honesty might be an alternative. putting a greater good concept ahead of partisan political gain might be another. no...i'm not saying that we're wrong to be investigating. i'm just saying that we find neat ways to pollute even reasonable efforts. totally agreed that the implications of bush are more significant than the implications of Clinton.
i have?? i don't remember commenting on these hearings or this investigation at all until this morning. not saying i didn't...but i certainly don't remember if i did. and i'm not concerned with a liberal witchhunt..i'm concerned with a political witchhunt...not necessarily by this commission, but that either side will seize the findings of this commission for some political gain. again..i'm not saying that we shouldn't make an attempt at finding out. and i agree...this is best served as a real inquiry into what we can change to prevent this from happening again. and i hope that will be the result. but i'm not getting a real altruistic vibe out of washington, frankly. i've voted for both sides...and been disappointed by both sides. in the end, it's like team sports...the R's and the D's. and it seems all that matters to them is who wins that fight...which isn't fought on intellectual grounds, but rather in the court of public opinion where a neat spin convinces the masses. you're more hopeful about this than I am...i don't mean to be a buzz-kill. sorry about that.
