posted on March 25, 2004 06:35:59 AM new
This morning I read Peggy Noonan's 'take' of the Commission Hearings of the past two days.
Here's part of her take:
The hearings did no damage to common-sense assumptions about 9/11.
Common sense suggests that those who led the nation for eight years before 9/11 bear greater responsibility than those who led the nation for less than eight months. Nothing in the hearings disturbed that notion. In fact, I thought Ms. Albright's testimony tended to underscore it.
She spoke of the "megashock" of 9/11 and repeatedly suggested there was no political will on the part of the American people before that date to attack the Taliban or invade Afghanistan. She's right. There was no movement among voters to take out Al Qaeda. Most people didn't know what al Qaeda was. But that of course is where leadership comes in.
One summer day in the late 1990s I had a long talk with an elected official who was a friend and longtime political supporter of President Clinton. I asked him why, if Bill Clinton cared so much about his legacy, he didn't take steps to make America safer from terrorism. Why didn't he make it one of his big issues? We were at lunch in a New York restaurant, and I gestured toward the tables of happy people drinking golden-colored wine in gleaming glasses. They're all going to get sick when we get nuked, I said; they'd honor your guy for having warned and prepared.
Yes, the official said, but you have to understand that Clinton is purely a poll driven politician, and if the numbers aren't there he won't move.
Too bad, I thought, because the numbers will someday be there.
The lunch was off the record, and I appreciated the official's candor; he didn't try to spin me. I wasn't shocked by what he said--Mr. Clinton was a poll driven animal. But you didn't have to be psychic to know bad things were coming; you only had to be watching the world. I found myself marveling at Mr. Clinton's thinking, which in the short term was savvy and in the long term spoke of a kind of moral retardation.
It is not the job of a president to say, "I'd like to do what's necessary to protect our country, but the people won't understand it or appreciate it." It is the job of a president to say, "I have to do what is necessary to protect our country, and so I'll try to persuade the people as to the rightness of my thinking. But if it comes to that I'll do what's needed and pay the price."
Mr. Clinton did not do that. He did not attempt to rouse the American people.
posted on March 25, 2004 06:48:28 AM new
I know helen....must REALLY be upsetting to read clark's own words....especially since YOU'RE the one who's continually saying there was no plan.
clark: "there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
And gee helen....sure appeared to me that the commission WAS interested in hearing from clinton and his administration about what they were/weren't doing since the AQ first attacked American interests in 1993.
Maybe you should inform them that YOU don't want THEM to continue to bring clinton's actions up.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 25, 2004 07:06 AM ]
posted on March 25, 2004 06:48:31 AM new
I saw part of the hearings and I did watch Mr. Clarke on Larry King last evening. He remains steadfast, credible, very much believable.
He also faulted the Clinton administration and last night he talked quite a bit about it but like he said, it wasn't picked up by the news yesterday.
posted on March 25, 2004 06:55:56 AM new
there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Even if there was a plan that doesn't mean Bush would have acted upon it. It seems as if his main objective was dealing with Iraq and finding the WMD that didnt exist.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on March 25, 2004 06:57:34 AM new
The point to me is that clinton didn't take AQ seriously enough from 1993 on.
And after 7 years he still had NO PLAN to deal with them. He dealt with their actions as criminal actions, rather than as acts of war against our country.
Kerry will be the same way....only probably much worse.
But that doesn't keep those who opposed this President from *trying* [albiet unsuccessfully] to pin the responsibility for NOT acting before 9-11 to protect our nation.
No....let clinton's lack of actions slide for 7 years....but Bush should have done something to prevent 9-11, protect us, after only being in office 8 months. right....
you guys are just too funny.......
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 25, 2004 07:08 AM ]
posted on March 25, 2004 07:03:00 AM new
Yes, kiara...he spared nobody and made it clear that of the presidents that he had served, he considered the senior Bush superior in foreign relations.
LOL Linda...that's really funny. So we can't say that he is partisan.
posted on March 25, 2004 07:03:59 AM new
logansdad - Even if there was a plan that doesn't mean Bush would have acted upon it. It seems as if his main objective was dealing with Iraq and finding the WMD that didnt exist.
Your reasoning abilities are faulty, imo.
First of all this President DID do something, if you'd read clark's own words from 2002. While clinton didn't do anything, Bush did.
Then your above quote only proves to me that it doesn't matter what the 'truth' is....you'll only deny it anyway.
Then if you remember correctly this President DID go after the AQ in Afghanistan. Big time.
As president he was right to question if Iraq, and other nations, could have had something to do with 9-11. After all they'd attemped to kill a US President. No reason not to have questioned whether or not they could have been involved.
posted on March 25, 2004 07:05:24 AM new
Richard Clarke made his much-anticipated appearance before the 9/11 commission this afternoon and, right out of the box, delivered a stunning blow to the Bush administration—the political equivalent of a first-round knockout.
The blow was so stunning, it took a while to realize that it was a blow. Clarke thanked the members for holding the hearings, saying they finally provided him "a forum where I can apologize" to the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones. He continued, addressing those relatives, many of whom were sitting in the hearing room:
Your government failed you … and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn'tmatter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask … for your understanding and for your forgiveness.
posted on March 25, 2004 07:07:34 AM new"As president he was right to question if Iraq, and other nations, could have had something to do with 9-11. After all they'd attemped to kill a US President. No reason not to have questioned whether or not they could have been involved."
posted on March 25, 2004 07:18:06 AM new
No helen.....he's a "flip-flopper" too, just like kerry is. Two of a kind...
Clark's a man writing a book, most likely to cover his OWN as$ for failing to be able to see what was coming.[9-11] In HIS position as head of our counterterrorism force, he blames others but it was HE who appears to have dropped the ball. And I believe he admitted that on CNN last night.
posted on March 25, 2004 07:23:14 AM new
Helen, the fact that Clarke didn't spare anyone is what makes him even more believable.
Clinton was very concerned about Al Qaeda and in fact, was holding daily meetings about it. But when Bush took over he put the focus on Iraq which was a huge mistake. Now, instead of admitting that they made some mistakes they look even worse than they did before.
you guys are just too funny.......
I'm not sure who "you guys" are but I am trying to see things from all sides, Linda.
posted on March 25, 2004 07:33:41 AM new
right Kiara - Your continued 'impartiality', on everything this President does, is soooo clear. [not] But hey...if it makes you feel better to make such statements...go for it.
You might even convince yourself in time.
posted on March 25, 2004 07:41:38 AM new "Clark's a man writing a book, most likely to cover his OWN as$ for failing to be able to see what was coming.[9-11] In HIS position as head of our counterterrorism force, he blames others but it was HE who appears to have dropped the ball. And I believe he admitted that on CNN last night".
You have a knack linda for misinterpreting whatever information comes your way as anyone can see by reading your statement above. Did you watch or read the Clarke transcript? He made it clear that the Bush had not treated counterterrorism as an "urgent issue" before the Sept. 11 attacks. When he tried repeatedly to warn the Bush administration, he was ignored.
Before his testimony began, Clarke thanked the members for holding the hearings, saying they finally provided him "a forum where I can apologize" to the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones. He continued, addressing those relatives, many of whom were sitting in the hearing room:
The "ball" that you mention bounced off Bush's thick head.
posted on March 25, 2004 07:49:14 AM new
Linda, if you check back I didn't make any statements on Clarke until I saw his testimony and also the interview on Larry King last night.
Just so you know, I do think that the Clinton administration was at fault also. You make it sound like Clarke had total power, he didn't.
I'm constantly amazed how you, who can't even see me and don't even know me, can judge exactly how I feel on an issue. But then you were the one that made up your mind that I supported Kerry even after I told you I didn't, so why doesn't this surprise me?
To me it looks like your total devotion to Bush has blinded you so much that you can't even read the writing on the screen here and are just going full tilt in your own little world.
posted on March 25, 2004 07:50:06 AM new
yes helen I did watch it...both.
What you appear to be overlooking, from clark's own words in Aug. 2002, is that this administration immediately made changes [according to clark - before his flip-flop] but only have been in office eight months and getting the report one day before 9-11....made it pretty hard to see what was coming.
I'm sure IF clark KNEW we were going to be attacked he, himself, would have told the President that. Appears HE didn't see it coming either. tsk tsk...and that WAS HIS JOB.
And you're overlooking that clinton, with clark as his advisor too, made NO PLANS to pass on dealing with AQ that were to be passed on to this new administration.
"To me it looks like your total devotion to Bush has blinded you so much that you can't even read the writing on the screen here and are just going full tilt in your own little world."
kiaraYou hit the nail on the head with that remark.
And I would like to add ...with unquestioning and unconditional loyalty to a President that is a miserable failure.
posted on March 25, 2004 08:00:13 AM new
Clarke gave the final KO to the Bush administration. The man gained my trust when he apoligized to the families. Paul O'neill was telling the truth as well. I hope conservatives remember this in November.
posted on March 25, 2004 08:02:39 AM new
kiara - like I said...if it makes you feel better to believe you are impartial.....go for it. Your posts are there for all to read. I have yet to see you support *anything* this administration has done. When that happens...maybe I'll be more likely to 'buy' how you wish to be presenting your 'leanings'.
Until then....I'll claim I haven't decided which presidential candidate I support either.
----
You make it sound like Clarke had total power, he didn't
Clarke is the one who's supposed to have the information. He also has a mouth which he could have used to the press or anyone else for that matter to warn of the upcoming terrorist attack. He could have given the President HIS PROOF. HE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS COMING EITHER. In the testimony of Tenent...he said there was a HUGE amount of activity being reported at that time about many threats. They could not have acted on each and everything. There was NOTHING SPECIFIC ....none that said 'this is what's going to happen....do something about it.' And then this president refused to do so.
It's all the game of politics, just like that whole commission was for the last two days. They need to be focusing on what's ahead of us....not playing political games on 'who's to blame'. All share the blame.
posted on March 25, 2004 08:07:26 AM new
I think that's what Clarke was saying, Linda. He took blame for it and said he failed and he showed that many were to blame. I guess you missed that point.
Clarke was sending memos asking them to act on the threats but they were put on the back burner. I believe he tried very hard.
posted on March 25, 2004 08:12:10 AM new "I hope conservatives remember this in November."
That's a good point, blairwitch. If this had really been about a book or a campaign manuever, a more effective time for release of this book would have been about six or seven months from now. It's another indication that this is not all about a book. Americans need to know the truth...what went wrong and how to fix it.
posted on March 25, 2004 08:16:26 AM new
kiara - Clark took the blame because he SHOULD have taken the blame.
If from 1993-2001 he couldn't convince either clinton or President Bush this huge threat was there....he wasn't doing his job.
And if there were no plans on how to deal with the AQ threat on Jan. 20, 2001 when President Bush took over the reigns....then that makes it pretty clear to all it WASN'T looked upon as being the HUGE threat during the clinton administration that clarke now tries to imply it was.
This President had no idea these 9-11 actions were coming. To suggest otherwise is plain nuts. If he'd been presented with any sort of proof....rather than this is what I think....he would have acted to protect this nation. He has nothing to apologize for except not having the advantage of 20-20 hindsight that we have now.
"Bush has done "a terrible job" at fighting terrorism. Specifically: In the summer of 2001, Bush did almost nothing to deal with mounting evidence of an impending al-Qaida attack. Then, after 9/11, his main response was to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. This move not only distracted us from the real war on terrorism, it fed into Osama Bin Laden's propaganda—that the United States would invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab country—and thus served as the rallying cry for new terrorist recruits.
posted on March 25, 2004 08:42:38 AM new
Clarkes job as head of security held a cabinet position level under three presidents. Only under President Bush Jr was this job bumped down to a mere staff level. So obviously that tells me that the powers to be didn't take this job too serious especially given the times.
Now as to he wasn't doing his job how can you say that when Clarke kept asking for top level meetings and they wouldn't meet and it wasn't granted and then it was too late.
Just for the sake of argument, lets say this is all Clarkes fault. It does not change the fact that the boss, just like any CEO of any company is still held responsible for what people do under him. The buck stops there, that is the chain of command.
President Bush must accept responsibility for the lack of action under his watch just as well as those going all the way back to Reagan.
posted on March 25, 2004 09:02:03 AM new
That's right...the buck stops here. But 7 years of doing nothing....vs....8 months does speak volumes.
I ask: If this was SUCH A PRE-KNOWN THREAT - why was there NO PLAN passed on from the clinton administration to the new incoming administration????????
The FACT that the clinton administration had made no plans on how to deal with this threat showed he didn't see it as any more of a threat than did this administration at first glance.
If you remember correctly clinton also had his eyes on Iraq in Dec. 1998, after what?? the third or fourth attack on American interests by the AQ. But the clinton administration had made PLANS on how to remove saddam from power during that same period of time. Where were his plans on the AQ threat?
posted on March 25, 2004 09:56:43 AM new
check the history of Richard Armitage the one who replaced Rice the no show
7 paragraghs down....read Richard Armitage abandonment of U.S. prisoners of War after Vietnam .....plus there is a lot more....
FTW 1/24/01 - HR 19, Introduced by Republican Georgia Congressman Bob Barr on January 3, 2001, the first day of the new 107th Congress, would legislatively repeal sections of three Executive Orders specifically prohibiting assassinations by the United States Government.
Entitled the "Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001", the bill, submitted to the House International Relations Committee, would specifically nullify sections of three previous Executive Orders including one initiated by Ronald Reagan in 1981. It is interesting to note that acts of Congress are not required to nullify previous Executive Orders (EOs) which are, by definition, orders issued by the President and Commander in Chief to all federal employees (including military) under his authority. All that is necessary to reverse one EO is another EO. This is exactly what President George W. Bush did with respect to EOs issued by President Clinton on the environment in the last days of his administration.
Section 3 of HR 19 specifically states:
"The following provisions of Executive orders shall have no further force or effect:
(1) Section 5(g) of Executive Order 11905.
(2) Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12306.
(3) Section 2.11 of Executive Order 12333." [By Ronald Reagan]
Section 5 (g) of Executive Order 11905, signed by Gerald Ford on 2/18/76 specifically prohibited "political" assassination. Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036, signed 1/24/78 by Jimmy Carter renewed the ban. Section 2.11 of Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan on 12/4/81 renewed the ban on assassinations, or conspiracy to commit assassinations, as part of a broader package which gave virtually complete control of the American National Security apparatus to then Vice President George H.W. Bush.
The full text of HR 19 may be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov. Enter a search in the 107th Congress for 19 and it will take you straight to the bill
The bold move, unreported and ignored by any major media, offers a chance for an early referendum on the new administration's full-speed run at a more violent and brutish foreign policy.
The current bill, introduced by staunch Bush supporter and Clinton impeachment leader Barr, indicates that the Bush administration is seeking to add legitimacy to the move by implying that Congress and the American people support the action. This can only mean that there is quite likely a list of people the Bush Administration wants to start killing fairly quickly. The appointment of career covert operative and Annapolis graduate Richard Armitage as Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell only underscores the clear message that the Bush Administration is sending to the world.
Armitage, who was denied a 1989 appointment as Assistant Secretary of State because of links to Iran-Contra and other scandals, served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Reagan years. U.S. Government stipulations in the Oliver North trial specifically named Armitage as one of the DoD officials responsible for illegal transfers of weapons to Iran and the Contras. But Armitage's dirty past goes much deeper.
A Vietnam veteran and graduate of Annapolis, Armitage's roots have been thoroughly intertwined with the likes of CIA veteran Ted Shackley, Richard Secord, Heine Aderholt, Elliot Abrams, Dewey Clarridge, Edwin Wilson and Tom Clines. All of these men have been directly linked to CIA covert operations, the drug trade, the abandonment of U.S. prisoners of War after Vietnam and/or Iran-Contra. Armitage has also been routinely discussed in FTW as a Bush-era covert functionary who has been linked to covert operations, drug smuggling and the expansion of organized crime operations in Russia, Central Asia and the Far East.
In 1986 a private dispute between POW activist Ross Perot and Armitage went public as photos of Armitage with a topless Vietnamese nightclub owner Nguyet O'Rourke brought allegations of gambling and prostitution very close to Armitage's doorstep. The stories went public when TIME and "The Boston Globe" wrote lengthy stories on the feud in 1986 and 1987. That scandal arose as a result of 1984 investigations by President Reagan's Commission on Organized Crime in which the photo and documentation of gambling charges and prostitution led directly to Armitage's close association with O'Rourke. Then LAPD Assistant Chief Jesse Brewer, a former Commanding Officer of this writer, served on the Reagan Commission.
The 1992 best-seller "Kiss The Boys Goodbye" by former "60 MINUTES" producer Monika Jensen-Stevenson details Armitage's role as Reagan point man on Vietnam POW-MIA issues and describes why Armitage has earned the enmity of many POW activists. However, in a 1995 interview with "The Washington Post", Colin Powell referred to Armitage as his "white son." This, notwithstanding the fact that the 6 foot, balding, power-lifter, now 56, can still bench press 300 or more pounds and reportedly "enjoys killing."
William Tyree, Special Forces Veteran who has provided much reliable information and documentation to FTW in the past said, "Armitage used to 'sit ambush' on the trails in Laos and Cambodia. He liked it. Now when Powell, 'the dove,' sits down at a table with Armitage 'the killer' beside him the message will be that Armitage can reach across the table and deal with the other party on the spot." That message will not go unheard.
[For more on Armitage we recommend using the search engine at www.copvcia.com and also at The Progressive Review, www.prorev.com.]
There is reason to believe that a repeal of the assassination ban would lead to an immediate series of deaths. Remember, the Iran-Contra team is coming back to power with a vengeance.
The completion of a February 11, 1982 memorandum between Reagan Attorney General William French Smith and CIA Director Bill Casey removed any requirement for CIA to report drug trafficking by its agents, contractors and proprietary employees. Immediately thereafter cocaine consumption into the United States multiplied as imports rose from approximately 80 tons in 1982 to 600 tons by 1989.
[A copy of that memorandum, published by the CIA in 1998, is available in FTW's Extracts and Commentary on Volume II of the CIA Inspector General's Report" originally published on 10/8/98.]
There are no choices and this is no longer a convenient exercise of protected liberty. This is now a true struggle against tyranny. Call your Congressman. Call your local media. Call your neighbor. A loud enough uproar can stop this criminal move in its tracks. Silence can only invite bloodshed.
posted on March 25, 2004 10:01:29 AM new
Rice has also refused to testify under oath at the hearing, but she freely wags her tongue on every TV program that will have her on. There is something wrong there.
But I have a propositon for all those who insist on blaming Clinton for everything from the economy to 9-11.
I WON'T VOTE FOR CLINTON THIS FALL IF YOU WON'T VOTE FOR BUSH .
posted on March 25, 2004 10:07:09 AM newRice the no show
Condi Rice did appear before this commission and she has publically stated she will apppear again if they'd like to ask more questions they'd like her to address.
She herself has said she'd be willing to testify under oath. But it's been a long held position of most presidents that their immediate staff, since not nominated nor required to be approved by our Congress, don't testify before commissions.
posted on March 25, 2004 10:14:44 AM new
I was reading this earlier today.
************************************************
Which brings us to Condoleeza Rice.
Here's Richard Clarke, at the center of the storm, up there on Capitol Hill getting grilled over his story. And from the peanut gallery, there's Condi Rice, heading over to the microphones at the White House every chance she gets to attack Clarke when no one can ask her any serious follow ups.
A couple hours after Clarke testified Rice headed over to the mikes and called his charges "scurrilous."
"This story has so many twists and turns, he needs to get his story straight," she said.
Rice truly has the best of all worlds. She hangs back at the White House shooting spit balls at Clarke and the rest of them. But she doesn't have to back anything up because she doesn't have to testify under oath or get questioned.
She's a veritable information geyser, a one-woman-FOIA. She just won't answer questions under oath.
