O.K. folks, the 9-11 committee has noted some obvious contradictions in the testimony of Richard Clarke, and from comments made by Condoleeze Rice in various other venues. This is nothing new of course, since congressional republicans have said that Clarke has given contradictory testimony.

Clarke testified under oath, but Rice has only spoken to a panel that did not keep transcripts. In other words, Clarke is risking a lot in his testimony, while Rice is hedging.

[QUOTE]In a private interview in February with several members of the commission, Ms. Rice was not required to be under oath, and panel officials said that no transcript was made of the four-hour conversation. [QUOTE]

(Taken from the New York Times March 30th, 2004 article by Philip Shenon & Richard W. Stevenson; 9/11 Panel's Chiefs Want Rice to Testify Under Oath.)


While Clarke testified and risked perjury, the White House doesn't want the same playing field for one of their own.

[/QUOTE]There were signs throughout the day on Monday of a debate within the administration over whether to hold fast to the principle of not allowing White House aides to testify before Congress or to seek a deal that would allow Ms. Rice to appear before the commission.[QUOTE]

questions:
1.)If Clarke was out of the loop and knows little of what he is talking about, then why isn't Rice testifying(or have done so in the past) and let the offending party be punished for it?
2.)Why do you think it is fair that Clarke and not Rice be under oath?

Well, this story may be moot shortly. As of 9:00am today, all the major news outlets are reporting that Dr. Rice may indeed testify publicly, and under oath, provided that they can come to an agreement that this sets no precedent concerning future hearings.

1.)If Clarke was out of the loop and knows little of what he is talking about, then why isn't Rice testifying(or have done so in the past) and let the offending party be punished for it?
Well, here's where the inconsistancies are. Dick Cheney says that Clarke, was out of the loop, but Rice, in turn, has contradicted that assertion, as well as Cheney's intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she had retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.

2.)Why do you think it is fair that Clarke and not Rice be under oath?
I don't think it was fair that they could attack assertions he made under oath, while the administration was basically free to say whatever they wanted about him in the press. Now maybe we will find out who's inconsistancies matter the most.

In addition, I agree with those calling for the entirety of Clarke's and Rice's emails on this issue be declassified and released, to the extent allowed due to national security information. Seems rather unfair that this administration can selectively hand-pick "classified" portions of emails that appear to contradict Clarke's statements, declassify them and distribute them. Clarke has no way to respond in kind. After all, even if he has copies of these emails, he has no authority to "declassify" them for rebuttal.

So, let's open it all up. It's time we see the whole picture, and find out what really was done or not done, and then maybe we can find a way to keep this from happening again.

The White House has authorized Rice to testify before Congress under oath.

Rice to testify in public, under oath

Rice will testify in public. Bush and Cheney will be "interviewed" in private.

The White House was careful to specify that this is not a precedent-setting event:

There's an old saying in politics that goes along the lines of "Careful what you wish for, it might come true". That's pretty appropriate here I think. The anti-Bush crowd wanted Condi and they'll get Condi, both barrels of Condi I suspect. As a strong Bush supporter, I can't think of a person I'd rather have making the administration's case than Dr. Rice. I'm looking forward to her testimony.

To the ABB crowd all I can say is you asked for it, you got it. Enjoy.

I think is now going to come around and bite the Democrats in the rear. They were not expecting Rice to testify publicly and wanted to use the denial as ammunition against Bush in the 2004 election.

I'm delighted that Rice is testifying. I'm sorry that it took widespread public outcry and unnecessary pressure from both Congress and the media to finally get the White House to start doing the right thing, but I'm glad they are. I look forward to her testimony.

As for ammunition, I don't really care. I'm just interested in the truth. I want to know why the Hart-Rudman Report was ignored and I want to know why the White House lobbied against the first Homeland Security bill (the one in place before September 11) and I want to know why the Clarke strategy for minimizing the al-Qaeda threat was ignored and I want to know why Bush would not call a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism until September 2001 and I want to know why Bush refused to be briefed by his chief adviser on terrorism until after the September 11 attack. Hopefully, Dr. Rice can shed some light on all of the above.

nebraska29, evidently you missed the extensive discussion as to the whys and wherefores of executive privilege under the Richard Clarke thread....you may want to check it out...and especially my numerous posts discussing your questions here for debate.




Just wait folks....when it is time for former President Clinton and Vice-President Gore to testify before the 9/11 Committee....neither one wants to testify under oath in public. They are demanding the same rules apply to them as former officials as to a sitting President and Vice-President... to testify behind closed doors and not under oath. The 9/11 Commission is setting a precedent and granting their demands in order to get their testimony . So there are questions of so-called " executive privileges" raised from both sides of the aisle in this investigation.



And...let's not forget....when Richard Clarke was President Clinton's National Security Advisor in 1999....he did not testify in public and under oath before a commission for the very same reasons given for Condi Rice not testifying.

Condi Rice, just as Richard Clarke, has great communication skills and I am sure her public testimony under oath will clear up some fuzzy recollections.

I would comment on the spin you are further placing on the ridiculous amount of spin that "News"Max has already imposed on this story - were it not entirely off-topic. If you wish to try to use this tabloid tripe to trash other officials, start a new thread.



In fact, as the terms under which this thread have already been changed by Amlord's revelation, this one should probably be closed altogether.

I am curious Wertz. Why would you want an answer to this question when you clearly question the notion that al-Qaeda was involved in the Sept 11 attacks.


In this thread here on AD a little over a year ago you vehemently questioned if al-Qaeda was even involved?

Some quotes from that thread:






Have you now changed your mind and now agree that 9-11 was the work of Osama and al-Qaeda?

You may not like their editorial point of view but are you questioning the facts?

Using your quote, I could apply the same reasoning for such hallowed institutions as the NY Times and CNN! You may not agree but, like you, I'm just offering opinion.

Don't like News Max? Well, let's see what other non-tabloid tripe links I can find for you. And yes, it is about other government officials...but the spin is the same as the spin on Condi Rice....what the public demands and what the rules are for high level officials testifying in public and under oath. When it is Condi Rice...it is a disgrace. When it involves two other high level officials like Clinton and Gore...it is spin! Way to go Wertz



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/17/...ain600639.shtml



And I agree with you Wertz, this thread should be closed...but then again, things could change between today and Condi's day IN PUBLIC and UNDER OATH

Condi's afraid of nothing and has no reason to be afraid of anything.

Part of her agreement is not being able to be called back. So, she can make up practically anything she wants under oath, but can't be charged with a crime because she won't have a chance to "clarify" her statements like anybody else can do. Perjury is very, very difficult to prosecute. It would be almost impossible to find her testimony perjurious without being able to interview her again to build the case.

Obviously, she set those conditions, but the commission accepted those conditions.

She will refute everything and call Clarke a liar without a shred of evidence or truth and get away with it. This was brilliant "strategery" on the administrations part. She has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

It is fascinating to watch how the Bushies who orignally said Condi Rice should not testify before the 9/11 Commission now are saying how brilliant she and the White House are now because they reversed themselves and caved in to bipartisan pressure.

A White House ally, Richard Perle, said, “I think she would be wise to testify.”
Perle, who resigned last month as an adviser to the Pentagon, said he recognized the constitutional concerns at issue. “Sometimes you have to set those aside because the circumstances require it,” he told CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, said, “It’s been one of the stupidest things this White House has done. ... She has to testify.”

Commissioner John Lehman, another Republican, said Rice “has nothing to hide, and yet this is creating the impression for honest Americans all over the country and people all over the world that the White House has something to hide, that Condi Rice has something to hide.”

“And if they do, we sure haven’t found it. There are no smoking guns. That’s what makes this so absurd. It’s a political blunder of the first order,” Lehman told ABC’s “This Week.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/

Bush and Rice were trying to hide behind a Kleenex-thin protection of "national security." Then again, it's worth remembering that Bush was opposed to the formation of 9/11 Commission. Tried to curtail the scope of the investigation and along with Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, tried to choke off both the money and time for the Commission to do their job.

But now the Bushies are spinning their bowing to pressure as if they wanted to do the very thing they fought all along. Once again the White House raises disingenuousness to new heights---and lows.

That's the way this adminstration works. Snatch a crumb of victory out of the jaws of defeat.

Bravo, Republicans, for talking some sense into the President! I just want to see the truth about 9/11, and obstructionism on the part of any camp stops the truth from coming out.

It's about time the President and his cabinet treated this as something more important than an annoyance to their schedule. I don't care if it took an election year to do it. Americans and the rest of the world deserve to know what really went on, what we knew, and what if anything should have been done to prevent not 9/11, but the attacks that took place on 9/11/2001.

Information provided by the Political Grapevine.

This is disingenuous at best. Tenet AND Clarke have said that Tenet kept bringing up AQ in nearly every meeting with Bush, but Bush just wasn't all that interested. And then when 9/11 happened, Bush wanted to focus on Iraq instead, regardless of what the evidence about the attack said.

The argument that was used for Dr. Rice not to testify is Executive privilege.

The purpose of executive privilege is to allow non-confirmed employees of the Whitehouse to speak their minds freely when advising the President without the worry that every word they speak woulld come under public scrutiny. The concern is that if your remarks are subject to such scrutiny you might change them when presenting them to the president, and thus the president might not get the complete picture.

The exception to this is criminal proceedings as in the case of Nixon.

This is not a criminal proceeding so they can claim executive privilege here. Or can they?

The idea is to keep aids and advisors away from public scrutiny to ensure they are willing to tell the president everything without fear of public condemnation.

Dr Rice has been all over the TV talking about this issue, and all the Whitehouse did prior to 9/11. She has brought the public scrutiny on herself. Executive privilege is now moot.

Executive privilege only applies to paid, non-confirmed aids, advisors and staff. Thus it will also not apply to Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force. Which was made up of private citizens.

I personally do not believe that the Whitehouse did anything terribly wrong before 9/11. However, there are alot of questions that must be answered for me to retain my trust in the Administration. What are they hiding in regards to the Energy Task Force? Why would Dr. Rice be willing to discuss the issue, and give the Adminstration rave reviews in the public forum, and even to the commission, but not under oath (where here remarks, if false could then qualify for a perjury charge)? What happened in regards to the Intelligence that was used to support the Iraq war?

Until these questions are answered, and until the Administration actively seeks to get them answered and resolved (I would be screaming for an investigation if I was accused of such things) I will have to err on the side of caution and cast my vote elsewhere.

This is factually incorrect. The reason the Bush administration didn't want Dr. Rice to testify in public under oath was Executive Privilege. That's something that every administration guards, even St. Hillary and ole Wild Bill invoked it from time to time. It is unfortunate that the politics of the time have basically turned the 9/11 hearings into more of a political poker game than a true fact finding mission, but that's the reality. And guess what? Bush just called the bluff.

The last thing the ABBers want to see is Condi Rice testifying in front of that commission. If they go after her, she'll chew them up and spit them out. And, they know that. So, they already start the spin machine as we have seen here in some of the recent posts. From DaytonRocker we get.......



Now there's an open mind.

Heck, even Nightline is trying to spin it already with one of the most politically biased reports I've seen in a long time from them. Even the thought of Condi has them on the run and don't give me any garbage about Nightline not being part of the liberal media. I've worked with those folks and some of them make Barbra look like a fricking moderate.

So yeah, Bush supporters are glad that they've worked out a deal for Dr. Rice to testify. She's one of the true shining stars in the Bush administration - brilliant, accomplished, articulate. Oh yeah, I'm looking forward to that. I'm really looking forward to that!

Be careful what you wish for Aquilla because you just may get it.

Do I expect the 9/11 Commission to pummel Dr. Rice into a weeping, wailing, soggy mess like a bad episode of Law and Order? Nope. First, it wouldn't look good to beat up on a woman, and it really wouldn't look good beating up on a black woman and it definitely wouldn't look good to beat up on a respected, intelligent and articulate black woman like Condoleeza Rice.

I'm sure the good Doctor Rice will acquit herself with as least as much calm deliberation and aplomb as...Richard Clarke.

But you can spin this as a "win" for the White House if you choose to Aquilla. The fact remains that for a week the Bushies said Rice would just love to testify but it would be such a bad precedent. Why? If Bush and Rice are so dang proud of how they've handled the war on terrorism, why shouldn't they welcome the opportunity to defend their record ON the record. The Bush Administration's take on the battle against terrorism seems to be, "We're doing fine so just believe us and don't ask any nosy questions."

How nice of them to spare us any niggling little details.

The problem is for you and Rice, Aquilla, is that she's an executive. She delegates and expects things to get done. Richard Clarke was a bureaucrat and the go-to-guy to get those things done. So at the end of the day who do you think has a better idea of what's going on? The person who's in charge or the person who knows what's going on?

People like this: Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator with a top secret clearance, said in an interview last week with Salon that the FBI had information that an attack using airplanes was being planned before September 11. Edmonds dismissed Condoleezza Rice's assertion in a Washington Post op-ed piece that the White House had no specific information on a domestic threat or one involving planes as "an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie." Edmonds, a Turkish American, has been a citizen for 10 years and speaks Farsi, Turkish, and Arabic. The FBI assigned her to translate documents seized by agents in its post-9-11 probe.

"President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should've alerted the people to the threat we were facing."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0413/mondo1.php

Despite her credentials and her poise and her polished demeanor, Condi Rice is a political appointee and it's her JOB to make Dubya look good come hell or high water. She doesn't work for the American people as much as she works for George Bush. I have no doubt that she will continue to do so when she testfies. It will be nice to see her speak to the American people for a change instead of early morning talk shows.

But Dr. Rice isn't the lady that necessarily gets things done and there's a big difference between those making policy and those passing on infomation that should be used to help formalize the policy.

Motives and motivations of those involved bear consideration. Richard Clarke is trying to sell a book. Fine. We're clear on that. What's Condi Rice trying to sell if not another four years of her patron, George W. Bush?

I dont know why you keep insisting on this Aquilla despite so many ABBers saying the opposite. After all we have all heard Rice's version on every talk show, in her op-ed pieces in the news, we have been inundated with Rice for the last week and half. What part of her story will be new depends on what questions she is asked.

In efforts to get the entire version and get some perspective on the truth I think its fair that everyone have their say, and see what the commission comes up with in the final review.

Conoleeza Rice has 'misspoke' a few times already, as has Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clarke and certainely Bush himself. Its up to the commission to decifer between all of this what really happened. I expect Dr. Rice to defend her actions and support the Adminstration, but she should expect the same tough questions as everyone else and explain the discrepancies in her words and policies in contrast to what others have testified.

I dont think that the commission is going to come back and accuse anyone of allowing 911 to occur, but from what I heard today from two commission members on Jim Lerher, its already evident to them that some important mistakes were made by both administrations. I know that Dr. Rice is an eloquent speaker and a formidable voice, however I dont think you can expect that she is going to afford this admin a free pass. It is important though that she get her story in with the rest.

We are looking for the truth I assume, not trying to supress the facts and leave the commission to guess? The admin made one of its first good decisions in recent weeks to allow Rice's testimony.
I heard a blurb today that this may be from the advice of Karen Hughes who suddenly reappeared today and will be working on the Bush campaign, another smart move by the admin.
She goes as far as to comment, ""The president recognized ( suddenly? my edit) that the debate about the process -- about who and how and where and whether it was public or private or sworn or unsworn -- was overwhelming the facts of the matter," said Karen Hughes, one of Bush's top advisers, who is about to assume a central role in his re-election campaign."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2476488

This gives me the idea that she was directly responsible for the change of direction by the admin. Kudos really, Hughes is the voice of public reasoning for this admin, and many of their public mistakes might have been avoided if she had been closer.

As an ABBer, I am fine with Rice testimony but NOT happy about Hughes being back on the job, shes too good.

You may be right about Karen Hughes' influence on this decision. She's probably the only person other than Laura Bush who can buck the prevailing thought in the White House. I'm a little surprised that you hold her in quite so high esteem as you appear to though. I remember reading a few years ago that she is a mirror of President Bush, thinks almost exactly like he does. The word then was that if you had an idea you wanted to sell to the President, you'd first go to Karen and see what she thought about it. If she liked it, then you'd know the President would as well.

I'm happy to see her becoming more involved now.

Plenty of blame to go around.

John Kerry admitted that he had not done enough, in an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live" on Sept. 11, 2001:

King: Senator Kerry did your . . . committee on international operations and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

Kerry: Absolutely. Absolutely. . . . We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as--I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding.http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/lkl.00.html

This in no way mean Kerry is to blame for Sept. 11. Itsimply points out that until then, the majority of political leaders of both parties did not take the terrorist threat seriously enough.Both Clinton and Bush. From the left-wing site CommonDreams.org, a professor named Ira Chernus illuminates one reason why:

Suppose the Bush administration had heeded the urgent pleas of Richard Clarke. Suppose they had made stopping Osama's agents their very highest goal. Suppose they had done everything that Clarke and other antiterrorism experts advised. How would we on the left, in the peace and justice movement, have responded?

We would have called it fear-mongering. We would have decried their skewed priorities. Every time they stopped an Arab tourist on suspicion, or made us take off our shoes at the airport, we would have denounced the emerging police state. And we would have been right.http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-02.htm

So all this crap some are trying to pin on Bush can just as easily be pinned on Kerry and the democrats. They all screwed up PERIOD.

But ,then again it IS an election year.

If we applaud Richard Clarke and his kind now, we cannot urge the voters to do the right thing for the right reason. We cannot argue that militarism and tough "security measures" are the wrong approach to the problem. We cannot explain how Bush's foreign policy, like Clinton's, breeds anti-American violence. We cannot talk about the changes we want to see in U.S. foreign policy, so that the victims of our policy won't feel driven to commit suicide in an effort to deter us. When it comes to so-called terrorism, those are the right reasons to turn Bush out of office.Chernus states that we should not sit back and use this incident for political gain. Everyone screwed up .

The Bush administration is the one playing the political game with the 9/11 commission. Bush called his own bluff. People from his own party were telling him that Condi needs to testify in public not just the Dems. It was the Bush administration who was sending everybody they know to go on TV to discredit Clarke.

But I have a question for all you faithful Bush supporters. If the Bush administration believe Clarke is lying about his testimony and assuming Condi gives a different version of the story with her testimony, why don't Bush charge Clarke with perjury?

If he can't do that through all the baby crying Cheney, Condi and others have done, then they should just be silent on the issue and stop whining.

Complete conjecture. Much like Clarke's "Rumsfeld looked distracted" and "by the look on her face, Rice didn't seem to know who AQ was". Nothing but filler, specifically designed for those who wish to be spoon-fed more "I hate Bush" conspiracy cereal.

I wish the President had not changed his mind. He should have stood on his principle and not allowed her to testify in public. Oh, she will do a great job and I believe much of what Clarke has said will be authoritatively dismissed. We already see some of it being debunked now.

She has testified for the committee already, so no one can argue that she is trying to “hide” information. Of course, I have heard that only a handful showed up to hear her four-hour testimony. Yet, I am sure they will all be there this time, smiling brightly or looking very serious for the cameras.

Yeah, there is something disingenuous going on here, amf. This committee is supposed to be after the truth. However, their actions concerning Rice make it appear they are only after their 15 minutes of fame, much like Richard Clarke.

Well, Condi is the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT. In addition
she was Clarke's boss. She should (assuming she tells the truth) be able to relay information that is valuable. How are they not seeking the truth? The President also needs to testify in public.

These people need to understand that the government serves the people and if we want information concerning the events and intelligence leading up to 9/11, they should let the public know. PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW.
If the Bush administration wants credit for the war on terrorism then they should also get blame for any mistakes made on their part.

I already addressed this in the Richard Clarke thread, but I'll repeat it here. Richard Clarke doesn't think he's lying. His testimony and book centers around his perceptions of what was happening in the Bush administration. He wasn't getting as much face time with the President as he had with Clinton, so his perception was that Bush was not as concerned with Al Qaeda as Clinton was.

Even if that perception is false, and I believe it to be based on what others from the administration have said, it's still not perjury.

Let's keep in mind that Rice has already gone before the Commission on February 7th.

Luminaries such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore have not yet testified. Are they "blocking"? Are they "hiding something"? Why the double standard here?

Beladonna Posted on Mar 31 2004, 01:13 PM


I've got to agree, and I also feel that executive privilege is not something any President has or wants to give up on a whim as detailed earlier in this thread. Since I supported Clintons use of executive privilege it would be hypocritical of me not to extend like support to Bush's claim as well. Actually I see his willingness to limit his own executive privilege as quite noble and hope that this does not set a precedent. Worst case scenario is that the President might burp at an inappropriate moment and a fact finding committee would form and hover around him and his staff demanding all to be interviewed under oath. If we think partisanship creates a bottle neck of bureaucracy now just imagine what this could lead to. Can we all say Lame Duck. 911 is a unique situation which requires unique attention. The relinquishing of executive privilege is appropriate under these circumstances as well as his reluctance to do so.

Maybe because they tried that with clinton and look what they got for the trouble. they were accussed of using the system to get back at a political rival. Clarke is a democrate after all. thats where his money has always gone.

Aquilla, you're absolutely right that Clarke's book and his testimony are centered on his perceptions that this administration downgraded the terrorism threat. You believe that this perception is a false one. I tend to disagree, because Clarke is not the only one saying it.

(Former Deputy National Security Advisor Lieutenant) General Donald L. Kerrick, "Candidly speaking, I didn't detect a strong focus on terrorism. That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what Dick Clarke and the CSG [the Counterterrorism Strategy Group he chaired] were doing."

General Hugh Shelton, whose term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff began under Clinton and ended under Bush, concurred. In his view, the Bush administration moved terrorism "farther to the back burner."

Bush himself says as much in his interview with Bob Woodward in the book "Bush at War." He said, "I didn't feel a sense of urgency."(with regards to terrorism).

In the Pentagon, prior to 9/11, things were much the same. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz complained at a White House meeting, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor." According to Wolfowitz, bin-Laden just didn't have the monetary resources to be a threat, without a country like Iraq or N. Korea to fund him.

This administration, according to several different sources, put the problem of stopping independent terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, on the back burner, and instead concentrated on "state sponsors". Countries like Iraq, Iran and N. Korea, countries with which we could use conventional military force against, and show everyone how "tough" we were on terrorists.

All of these people, including the President, say that terrorism was considered "important", but not "urgent" prior to 9/11. Others say that there were no really substantive high-level meetings on counter-terrorism prior to 9/11.

Dr. Rice disagrees, and she will do so at the commission mettings. But should I believe just one source, or a half a dozen?



I have different information, Vicideon. In a March 24th interview with Joe Conason, of Slate:

If you have evidence to back up your claim, Vicideon, I'd like to see it.

Tim Russert asked Clarke who he voted for in the 2000 Presidential Election.

Clarke's answer: Al Gore.

Again, that doesn't undermine his testimony, but it certainly colors it.

The guy he WANTED to be his boss lost. He characterizes what the guy he WANTED to win's previous administration did in a favorable light. He characterizes the guy he voted AGAINST as having a lesser record. Clarke should never have brought that subject to light and should have skirted it (in my opinion).

In the primary, however, he voted for John McCain. I could just be that he thought Gore's positions were more in line with what McCain's were in the primary, and so voted that way. I imagine that had McCain won the primary race, Clarke would have continued to vote for him over Gore, don't you?

And it still doesn't say anything to the assertion Vicideon made that Clarke's money and vote always went Democrat. I think the fact that he supported McCain, and voted for him early on, speaks to that assertion as being false.

Hard to see how he could have skirted the issue, when he was being accused of being a partisan Democrat. When asked who he voted for in the general election, he could have said "that's none of your business", or "I'm sorry, that's private", but you know that would have illicited responses like "see, that proves he's a democrat!", or "What is it he's hiding?". It would be a hanged if you do, hanged if you don't situation.

Virginia has open Primaries. No registration is required.

There was no Democrat primary in Virginia, it was a Caucus.

There WAS a Republican primary, so why not vote in it (since it is open...)

As my high school Civics teacher said : always register Democrat, since the only difference is whether or not there is a primary, and Republican rarely have contested primaries.

In this case, it was the opposite: Republicans had a meaningful primary. It doesn't say much, especially if you consider he voted for Gore.

His perception is correct considering the way we just bulldozed into Iraq and FORGOT about bin Laden. Actions speak louder than words. This guy has repeated some of the same accusations about this President along with others who have left this administration. It is time for Americans to stop looking at everything as partisan and question the ethics and morals of our leaders.

Richard Clarke was under OATH. Those perceptions are now based on that he was telling the truth. Does it matter that he was upset because he wasn't getting much face time with the President? NO!! He only had important information he felt might have prevented the 9/11 attacks. All someone had to do was listen. Nothing wrong with that.

Do we live in a country where we can't disagree with our leaders without being called every name in the book from a President who allow his administration to go on TV and act like school kids fussing over food because someone has a different point of view on policy?

Let stop chopping down our fellow citizen all because he feels the President made an error in judgement. The man did his JOB. We are all too warped up in this partisan battle.

Yeah Condi went before the commission on Feb. 7. BUT she wasn't under OATH and it was not PUBLIC. As an American citizen, the leaders of this country SERVE THE PEOPLE. I want to know what they know concerning 9/11 and telling some people in private and not under oath will not cut it. For all the lip service she put on Clarke, she now has her chance to step up to the plate and she had better not strike out. NO MORE EXCUSES!!

It only colors it if you think this is all partisan instead of a reasonable inquiry into the lack of action on the part of the Administration pre-9/11 to the terrorism warnings passed along from the Clinton Administration. The Bush team when they came into office had one motto: "Anything but what Clinton did." So they ignored the terrorism warnings and focused on "rogue states" (remember the "axis of evil"?) and missle defense. They completely ignored terrorism that WASN'T state-sponsored.

Check out this article: Terrorists Don't Need States



So while Clinton's actions may pain you in so many ways, he at least recognized that AQ was a threat worthy of significant focus. Bush did not, pre-9/11.

So I ask you: is it worse to recognize a threat and do nothing? or to not realize the threat is as big as it really is?

I am not excusing the Bush administration. What I have said is that Clarke's testimony seems colored by his personal feelings about Bush. I agree with Aquilla on that: whereas Clinton at least paid lip service to Clarke's warnings (which we now all realize that everyone should have paid more attention to..), Bush's team focused on other threat areas (threat areas that were real and demonstrable, I might add). We were blind-sided, but nothing the Clinton team did or proposed would have stopped those attacks either.

That does not excuse Bush's overlooking the threat that was (and is ) Al Qaeda. But it also does not prove (in fact, it tends to disprove) that Bush "did nothing" or "ignored" the problem.

THe guy placed more blame on himself than he did any of the administrations. He said both the Clinton and the Bush administration were lenient on terrorism and any one of them could have prevented terrorism.

Yet, not one Republican even considers this to be a possibility. It must be untrue. "I bet he is just a liberal in Republican clothing". It seems that is the answer to everything. Liberal this and lieberal that. Why not open for the possibility that yes, during the flourishing and prosperous years before 9/11, America was not necessarily concerned with sending teens over to die in Afghnistan.

And let's not even talk about his Clarke's quote about being preoccupied with Iraq. I'm still trying to figure out Saddam's connection.



And to add on to this. I don't see where the separation of powers conflicts when she has already given her testimony to the board...it just wasn't on record. Does it not seem like we're playing "war games"? It's like a "catch me if you can" (I know you guys like the allusions to movie titles) and the only person I see as being straight-forward is this Clarke fellow.

He is the one that wants to declassify everything and he is the one that has tarnished his reputation not only with the Republicans, but with the victims of 9/11 and with all those who heard his apology. It seems he lost a lot, and the fact that he is giving a substantial amount of his book sales to the victims of 9/11 and fallen soldiers doesn't make the Republican's finger-pointing case any better.

We have to realize that the threat was a mounting situation. The Clinton administration recognized that there was a new threat, something to be aware of and watch closely. Not a specifically dire and immediate threat , so far., but the ball was then rolling downhill, picking up speed.

Change of administration, which desires to do a reverse of the previous and a mounting threat is put on the backburner, all the while giving the terrorists the time to become stronger. Clarke is very reasonably frustrated at that time and in hindsight becomes convinced that Bush could have done more.

I also am not defending or critisizing either admin, but the threat obviouslyprogressed in time.

Actually from the Pentagon notes found in a StarBucks yesterday,( confirmed by the Pentagon as authentic), the admin did resolve to attack Afghanistan in the Sept 4th meeting, the one in which Clarke was finally able to speak to the President.
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/2004...12127-9812r.htm

This is quite telling about Clarkes persuasive case against Bin Laden, but also confirms that the admin had plans to attack Bin Laden before Sept 11 so therefore was not 'doing nothing', just late.

Sorry that Im off topic, Im getting confused between the Condi and Clarke threads.

So you're saying that the Clinton Administration "did nothing"? Or the Bush Administration?

See, with Clinton, you had missles being lobbed into Afghanistan (similar to what Bush did after 9/11) and Sudan. You had a clear terrorism threat -- the bombing of LAX -- stopped at the Canadian border. Neither is "nothing".

With Bush: we had ... um... nothing. Nothing but low-level meetings, that is. Oh, and a "plan" that took nine months to hatch that looked suspiciously like the plan that Clarke proposed when Bush took office. I'm not impressed.

And as for those other threat areas that were real and demonstrable, exactly HOW was missle defense going to help? Was Iraq a "real and demonstrable" threat (no suppositions here, gotta be "real and demonstrable" as you stated in your own posting)? Those were the focus of the Bush team.

Here's the crux of much of our disagreements.

It's highly unlikely that Bush could stop 911 with so little time as compared to Clinton being able to stop it. With Clinton, highly unlikely. With Bush, almost impossible.

But when Bush directed our efforts as what you deem "threat areas that were real and demonstrable", that's the problem.

Iraq had nothing to do with the global war on terror. Some of us have been able to overcome our hatred for Saddam long enough to think clearly about our safety here at home. That's the problem I have - and many of us have. You mistake our opposition to invading Iraq as meaning we are against the war on terror.

Not true.

There is not even one shred of conclusive proof that can show Saddam was a "real and demonstrable threat". Yet, we can show the many, many ways he was not, or at least, no worse than Saudi Arabia, Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia, blah blah blah. Do you realize we flew 40,000 sorties over the 2/3's of their country they were not allowed to fly over and never lost one plane?

I can't find a record of even ONE international terrorist incident related to Iraq. Not even one. You'd need to be looking for something to believe to think that WTC I and the Bush 41 assassination attempt were related to Iraq. It just doesn't hold water. None of them were Iraqi (Kuwaiti and Pakistani) and none had Iraqi passports. Ball bearings and forged passports are the basis to these very, very weak claims.

Bush was so focused on Iraq, that 911 only complicated matters. Sure, he took us to Afghanistan and kicked some Taliban butt, but then he took everybody out to provide a solution for a problem that didn't exist over in Iraq. Now, almost all our resources are stocked up in an area that we find out never was a threat with no short-term way out. Now, most of the world is turned against us, Muslims are becoming less passive about the situation, and Afghanistan is turning back the clock.

Fallujah just celebrated the death and dimemberment of four of our countrymen over there trying to help. Fallujah has no police force because they killed all the Iraqi police and burned the police station down. No security forces entered Fallujah after yesterday's massacre because everybody is afraid to go in there. Our response, if one is applied, will be fierce - and make more Muslims mad. If that was the cost to ensure our safety here at home, big deal. I wouldn't care what they thought. But that is not the case. This will only serve to make a bad problem worse.

Personally, I want Rice to testify and publically contradict Clarke. Under that circumstance, only a charge of perjury on either Clarke or Rice will be able to settle the debate, and confidential papers will have to be declassified to prove perjury of either.

Let the truth be known. (No, I don't believe anyone will be charged with perjury, but I wish they would).

For grins, let's see what the alternative to George W. Bush was proposing in his 2000 platform:


Democrat 2000 Platform
I guess Gore was for the ballistic missile shield, too.

Let's try to keep some perspective here. US forces in Iraq before 9/11 are referenced by bin Laden as a grievance. US "oppression" of the Iraqi people is often cited by bin Laden. In a videotape released a few weeks after September 11, bin Laden said, “Millions of innocent children are being killed in Iraq and in Palestine, and we don’t hear a word from the infidels.” Clearly the status quo in Iraq continued to cause international problems, but it is just as clear that the US could not simply go home with Saddam still in power.

So you went from a "real and demonstrable" threat to "well, Gore wanted the missle shield" and "bin Laden made references to Iraq after 9/11". I expected a better argument here.

So... when did Iraq become a "real and demonstrable" threat?

And as for Condi testifying (to get this thread back on track), I look forward to hearing her version of "truth", since she's had to re-clarify her public arguments a bunch of times since she started trying to contradict Clarke's testimony. Under oath and with the commission looking to explore just those contradictions, you can bet that some of the real story will finally come out.

Sorry, Sleeper, I'd missed this posting until now.


Then, as now, I was questioning the evidence the Bush administration had of al-Qaeda's involvement in the September 11 attack before we illegally invaded Afghanistan.

I have since posted elsewhere that, while it's likely al-Qaeda was responsible, I'd still like to know what the incontrovertible evidence was which lead to the ouster of the Taliban. As I even mentioned in the thread you cite, "I don't dispute that since [our invasion of Afghanistan], a few compelling indications of al-Qaeda complicity have emerged." My concern was related to taking out the Taliban, not bin Laden. I do not miss the Taliban any more than I do Saddam Hussein, but the ends, to my mind, do not justify the means. The Taliban had every right to request grounds for extradition - as would any other governing body of any other nation. They were refused those grounds and conquered - illegally.

This ties directly in to why Dr. Rice might have been wary of testifying under oath. If the Bush administration did have ready evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement within hours of the September 11 attack, all the more reason that they should have taken heed of the warnings from someone who was best positioned to know how imminent that threat was. Why was Clarke ignored for so many months - especially if there was compelling evidence to tie al-Qaeda into such an attack at their fingertips? (It might be worth stressing here that the Clarke strategy was specifically directed at al-Qaeda and bin Laden, not the Taliban, the Afghan warlords, Pakistan, Iraq, or Tierra del Fuego.)

My doubts about the "evidence" (which has yet to be revealed) have nothing whatsoever to do with Clarke's strategy. He was basing his plan of action on what al-Qaeda had already done - and what they were capable of doing in the near future. Whether al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11 attack or not, Clarke's concerns seemed pretty valid - and his strategy for eliminating the threat of al-Qaeda and bin Laden fairly effective. So, yeah, I'd like to know why he was ignored.

As to the ongoing blame game, I should also mention that it was the Clinton administration which commissioned Clarke's strategy - the strategy which, if followed through, might (if al-Qaeda was responsible for the September 11 attack) have prevented that attack. For those of you who are absolutely certain (for reasons which anyone has yet to share) that the Bush administration had concrete evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement in that attack by September 12, then their ignorance of Clarke and his strategy is that much more inexcusable. And Condi Rice has that much more for which to answer.

Yet some more fallout regarding this issue.


(April 1, 2004 Washington Post article by Dana Milbank)

If Clarke has no idea what he's talking about and he's completely out of the loop, then why did the top counsel for the White House check in on the friendly senators and try to help them dredge up material on Clarke?? If he's a knave and can be exposed as a phony, why the Nixon-like tactics?? Say what you want about "moral clarity" and other pious pronunciations of "return to moral values" This administration plays hard and dirty(remind you Republicans of Clinton?)when it comes to protecting their man from the facts of a given situation.

I guess these points are moot, since Rice has now testified under oath, publicly.

But to answer the Question posed in the title of this topic : What is Condi afraid of?

Perhaps the administration was a little leery about the accusatory nature of the questioning. Why didn't you protect us? What could you have done differently? Questions of this nature.

The attitude of some of the 9/11 family members that I saw last night reminded me of a situation we had here in Cleveland a few days ago:

A 14 year old girl has been missing for over a week. The mayor of Cleveland (Jane Campbell) held a meeting at a local school trying to get information out to the people in that neighborhood. The meeting broke down after several members of the audience began shouting at the mayor and police about why they haven't found the girl, why aren't they doing more...

The comparison here is that instead of placing blame on the people responsible (the terrorists, or the potential kidnapper), we blame the authorities. The government cannot and will never protect its citizenry from every potential hazard or threat. They cannot be blamed when someone decides to kill another, rob another, or slam airplanes into our buildings.

The "blame" game I see from certain 9/11 families is improperly focused on the Administration, rather than on those responsible. The 9/11 Commission (or some members of it) are feeding this misplaced anger:

Transcript of Rice's testimony

Rice, of course, explains how the previous attitude was one of law enforcement and retaliation after the fact, rather than pre-emption.

Of course, there was no political will to justify a pre-emptive strike on Afghanistan, let alone the fact that without the support of Pakistan such an operation would have been next to impossible.

Of course, when the administration pursues a strategy of pre-emption now, they are also called out on it. So they were damned if they did, damned if they didn't.

That proves nothing. I as a libertarian voted in the democratic primary. Anyone can vote in any primary no matter their registration in a party. Clarke gave far more money to democrats than republicans. Where your money is, so is you heart.

p.s. some republicans are as close to democrats as you can get without going over {McCain, Specter}.

In 2002, while still on the Bush National Security Council (NSC), Clarke gave the legal maximum limit of $2,000 to a Democratic candidate for Congress, Steve Andreasen, who tried to unseat Republican Congressman Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota. Andreason had been director for defense policy and arms control on the Clinton NSC. In making his donations of $1,000 on July 22 and another $1,000 on Nov. 7, 2002, Clarke listed his occupation as "U.S. Government/Civil Servant," according to FEC records indexed with the Center for Responsive Politics.

Clarke maxed out again in the 2004 election cycle, donating $2,000 to another Clinton White House veteran, Jamie Metzl, who is running as a Democrat for Congress from Missouri. Metzl was a staffer on the Clinton NSC and worked for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) as deputy staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With that donation, made on Sept. 15, 2003, after his resignation from the Bush NSC, Clarke listed his occupation as "Self-Employed/Consultant."

FEC records show that Clarke reported no political contributions when he worked in the Clinton administration in the electoral cycles of the 1990s and 2000, when he said he was a Republican.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/30/...ts-641404.shtml

though Mr. Clarke is billed as a ''Republican,'' Federal Election Commission records indicate that his political donations have been entirely to Democrats.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...ay.asp?aid=6582

Being a registered what ever means nothing. I am a registered republican but have voted democrat and for the last 15 years as a libertarian. What matters are actions and He votes, supports and gives his money to Democrats. What you forget is no one, not even the American people had terrorism here on their mind or as a priority. No president before Bush had either. Bush did nothing any different except;

Woody was on 60 minutes last evening of april18 pushing his book. Again, the same company that owns cbs publishes the book. With the exception of Bush and Cheney he fails to source his quotes, so we are basically told to take his word for a lot of it.70 unnamed sources.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php#005628
Paul O'Neill: The battle is joined
Or
Down a ways the title

Lid Blown Off O'Neill/Suskind Hoax

"Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, 'Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts.' He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraq oil (CBS's promotional story also contained that claim): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ble592330.shtml
[archived]
"But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes.

"And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)"

O'Neill said this morning on NBC's "Today" show he was guilty of using "vivid" language during his hundreds of hours of interviews for a book. As for his quote about the president being "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people," he claimed, "If I could take it back, I would take it back." O'Neill said he "probably" would vote to re-elect Bush in November. "I don't see anyone who is better prepared or more capable," he said. O’Neill insisted, "It was not my intention to be personally critical of the president or anybody else," but rather to collaborate "on a chronicle of 23 months" in government.

But that does not sale books now does it?



It turns out that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's so-called bombshell revelation that the Bush administration had a "secret plan" to depose Saddam Hussein before 9/11 wasn't such a secret after all.


In fact, not only did plans for "regime change" in Iraq NOT originate with the Bush White House, the "sinister plot" was actually ratified by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton a full three years before President Bush came to Washington.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/13/101255.shtml
As O'Neill himself said on "Today" 1-13, "People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq." He continues:

One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

The left griped about bush having no plan for Iraq, then this came up and they gripe because he did.


O'Neal even said he is going to vote for Bush because no one else was as capable or prepared.
According to the Wall Street Journal [a Tuesday edition], "The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was passed by an unanimous Senate and a near-unanimous House,"


All this and the reality is that the decision to remove saddam {regime change} was made under Clinton not Bush. So what’s the big deal about having an attack plane] again????????????????
p.s. Woodward book supports Bush with only a few areas of criticism. The GOP is even pushing the book on its official web page. Hardly the actions of a group that agrees with you.