Discover Freedom - DPChallenge Forums

03/27/2004 12:39:01 PM · #901

I really wish you would have the sense of humor that the presidente has (or maybe you have...hmmm). Take a deep breath and reread my post. In it you will see that I stated that my thinking is the WH didn't want to expose Condi to "Richard Clark's allegations and testimony." Allegateions and testimony are the key words here. For example, I didn't say that RC was denied a principle's meeting...RC stated that.

I make no predetermined accusations or judgement of guilt. I simply listen to what is being said and then make my judgements. Not that I think a whole lot is going to come out, and it will come out after the elections anyway. That is the whole purpose of the 911 hearings...to investigate what really happened. But condi didn't testify under oath, so now we are all left wondering.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
More than likely, though, it wasn't nat'l security issues that the WH was worried about or how it looked like when Condoleezza would have declined certain questions, but they didn't want her to have to face the questions about Richard Clark's allegations and testimony. For example: why RC was declined a principle's meeting about the threat that al Qaeda posed in the early summer of 2001. Also, why most, if not all, of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 who were out of the country when Bush took over the presidency, were allowed back in under his "watch." And why if the Bush administration had knowledge of the urgency of the pending attacks, the airlines and public were not alerted better.

Do you EVER post anything factual or substantiated? Or are you only capable of unsubstantiated accusations, "ponderings", and innuendo? Do you think that the "More than likely though..." introduction excuses all of the innuendo that follows? For example: other than the testimony of a liar, what evidence can you provide that RC was declined a principle's meeting about the threat that al Qaeda posed in the early summer of 2001? What evidence can you provide that the 9/11 hijackers should NOT have been let back into the country? The airlines ( at least Logan airport ) WAS alerted to the danger - I already provided a link that outlines how the media in Boston alerted not only Logan airport, but also Senator Kerry.

Message edited by author 2004-03-27 12:43:55.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/27/2004 12:44:13 PM · #902

Maybe it's all just a case of mistaken identity ...

Mar 23, 2004
CLARKE CRITICISM

All this incompetence! This is Dave Ross ...

I have to tell you, it's amazing how ex-administration officials who write critical books suddenly turn out to be completely incompetent. Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism director, writes his book saying the President had his eye on Saddam from the outset, and suddenly Clarke just doesn't know what he's talking about.

The Vice President says Clarke was "out of the loop" on this one.

Interesting that the White House would keep its own director of counter terrorism "out of the loop" on ... terrorism...

Hmm.

In any case, my favorite quote was the unnamed administration official who called the whole flap over Richard Clarke's book: "Dick Clarke's American grandstand" -- a clever pun on the old Rock 'n Roll dance show hosted by America's oldest living teenager, Dick Clark, NO "E".

Unless... you know, maybe that's it! Maybe that's why Bush wouldn't meet with Clarke about counter terrorism. Bush gets into the oval office, looks at the staff roster, sees "Dick Clarke, counter-terrorism," and he says to himself -- what does a DJ know about terrorism? Especially when he didn't realize how important Iraq was to America's safety. I mean if you have a DJ in charge of terrorism, he ought to at least be able to come up with a policy that has a beat and you can dance to.

And come to think of it -- maybe that's why he fired Paul O'Neill, as treasury secretary. I mean ... what does a Yankee right-fielder batting .267 know about money?

03/27/2004 12:55:59 PM · #903

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
well this was really what i was hoping someone would try to comment on. so if he is getting caught lying on TV, where is he lying that he is not being caught ?

Just for clarification, what exactly is the lie you are referring to?

im sorry, did i post the wrong link or did you not watch it?

Donald Rumsfeld starts the clip saying:

"you and a few other critics are the only people ive heard use the fraise immediate threat. i didnt, the president didnt. its become kinda folk lore that thats whats happend"

then in the clip he is quoted twice saying he thought they were an immediate threat. watch the clip..

and here is dubya sayin it just to be sure..

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."

Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).

granted he did not say immediate, but i believe thats the point he was trying to get accross..

Ron, i just have to ask. are you playing the devils advocate on all of this cause you like a good argument? or are you an undying republican or something of that nature. or do you accually believe all these people coming forth from top ranking positions are lying because they dont like Dubya?

and let me be clear on something else. Kerry is a lying politition just like the rest of them. and the only reason i will vote for him in Nov is because im part of the ABB camp. if for no other reason (and there are shitloads), because im a "tree hugging hippie" and i would like to be able to raise my children (if i ever have any) in a clean world that still has beauty left in it. the environment is very important to me. tho i dont understand how its not important to everyone.. w/out a healthy earth, there are no healthy humans..

but do you think Bush is the 1st honest politition in history? especially considering his shady backround?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/27/2004 01:01:01 PM · #904

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I have to tell you, it's amazing how ex-administration officials who write critical books suddenly turn out to be completely incompetent. Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism director, writes his book saying the President had his eye on Saddam from the outset, and suddenly Clarke just doesn't know what he's talking about.

After all, its only the 'left wing media' who never answer the questions and just attack the sources, right ?

03/27/2004 01:04:37 PM · #905

LOL this is friggin hilarious!!! i love it

sorry baby boomers

03/27/2004 01:18:20 PM · #906

I with you all the way on this one, brother.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

and let me be clear on something else. Kerry is a lying politition just like the rest of them. and the only reason i will vote for him in Nov is because im part of the ABB camp. if for no other reason (and there are shitloads), because im a "tree hugging hippie" and i would like to be able to raise my children (if i ever have any) in a clean world that still has beauty left in it. the environment is very important to me. tho i dont understand how its not important to everyone.. w/out a healthy earth, there are no healthy humans..

03/27/2004 01:26:46 PM · #907

Since this is photography web site and since the presidente' is such a good sport and hilariously funny party animal I would like to present this web site that has some fun pictures.
enjoy
Here

03/27/2004 01:30:54 PM · #908

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Actually, you said

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

...but they didn't want her to have to face the questions about Richard Clark's allegations and testimony. For example: why RC was declined...

(emphasis mine)
Now, explain again how that doesn't say that "RC was denied a principle's meeting...RC stated that"? Unless RC has suddenly become "they".
Hopefully, it will come out BEFORE the elections.
Is there some rationale that you can provide that indicates that Condoleeza lies when she is NOT under oath? If not, then why would you not believe what she has already said publicly?

Ron

03/27/2004 01:53:27 PM · #909

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

First, yes, I have watched it - several times, in fact. But, you are wrong, of course. The first quote is

Originally posted by Rumsfeld:

Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.

So to condense that, what Rumsfeld said is that he would not be so certain that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent. Being "not so certain" is quite different from saying flat out that the danger WAS imminient.
The second quote is

Originally posted by Rumsfeld:

No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Again, he did not say that Iraq WAS an immediate threat, just that Iraq was a "more" immediate threat than any other terror state. Obviously you are reading into both quotes a lot more than what was said.

Originally posted by Madmordegan:

and here is dubya sayin it just to be sure..

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."

Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).

granted he did not say immediate, but i believe thats the point he was trying to get accross..

I believe that if he had meant immediate, he would have said immediate. You may, and obviously do, believe otherwise.

Originally posted by Madmordegan:

Ron, i just have to ask. are you playing the devils advocate on all of this cause you like a good argument? or are you an undying republican or something of that nature. or do you accually believe all these people coming forth from top ranking positions are lying because they dont like Dubya?

No, I am not an "undying" Republican. Yes, I do believe that MOST of them are lying because they don't like Dubya. I also believe that that's why some others commenting in this forum throw out accusations and innuendo without fact or substantiation of any kind ( other than links to even more accusations and innuendo ).

Originally posted by Madmordegan:

No, but I consider him to be more honest than most.

Originally posted by Madmordegan:

especially considering his shady backround?

See, now there you go again...innuendo - referring to Bush's "shady background" with no substantiation, just innuendo, innuendo, innuendo. Could you TRY to keep that kind of comment to yourself?

Ron

(edited for grammatical errors)

Message edited by author 2004-03-27 13:55:27.

03/27/2004 02:17:10 PM · #910

ok well Ron has his mind made up. ill stop replying to your posts now Ron, as nothing I can say will dent your already rock solid thoughts on the subject.
congradulations on allways being right. your an expert at minzing words, you should get into politics.

03/27/2004 02:56:46 PM · #911

I don't think it will be coming out before the elections, Ron. I believe the WH has already stated that, but I could be wrong.

Can you provide some rationale for why Richard Clarke was required to be under oath when he testified, or for that matter, anyone that has testified in the 911 hearings so far? Can you provide any rationale for why anybody in any courtroom in the judicial system should be under oath, or is that just left for the poor (literally) slob that has been alleged to commit any petty crime? While the 911 hearing is not a criminal case, consider it as the same as a grand jury. It may not yield justice, but it's a start to finding out what went on in both the Clinton and Bush administrations as concerning the 911 attacks.

Originally posted by RonB:

Hopefully, it will come out BEFORE the elections.

Is there some rationale that you can provide that indicates that Condoleeza lies when she is NOT under oath? If not, then why would you not believe what she has already said publicly?

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-03-27 15:03:19.

03/27/2004 10:40:54 PM · #912

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I don't think it will be coming out before the elections, Ron. I believe the WH has already stated that, but I could be wrong.

I hope so. If the report does NOT come out within 6-months or so, I would be inclined to conclude that the white house is stonewalling.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Can you provide some rationale for why Richard Clarke was required to be under oath when he testified, or for that matter, anyone that has testified in the 911 hearings so far?

Yeah. It's in the Rules for the hearings - to wit:
-------------------------------------------------
2.6. Conduct of Hearing.
(a) All hearings of the committee shall be public unless the committee, by two-thirds vote of all its members, determines that a hearing should not be open to the public in a particular instance.
(b) The chair shall preside at all hearings of the committee and shall conduct the examination of witnesses alone or supervise examination by other members of the committee, the committeeâ��s counsel, or members of the committeeâ��s staff who are so authorized.

2.7. Oath or Affirmation.
(a) All testimony given or adduced at a hearing shall be under oath or affirmation unless the requirement is dispensed with in a particular instance by a majority vote of the committee members present at the hearing. Any member may administer an oath or affirmation to a witness at a hearing of the committee.
(b) The form of the oath or affirmation shall be: "Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
-------------------------------------------------
Note that the rules allow for (but do not require) the occasion of testimony in private, and not under oath, as has been requested by Dr. Rice.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Can you provide any rationale for why anybody in any courtroom in the judicial system should be under oath, or is that just left for the poor (literally) slob that has been alleged to commit any petty crime?

Primarily so that such testimony, if found to be intentionally false, can result in prosecution in and of itself ( perjury ). This is intended to be a deterrent to perjury - and it's not limited to poor slobs, but is applicable to all who present testimony in either criminal or civil court, or in grand jury investigations, including those who are granted immunity from prosecution otherwise in the case at hand.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

While the 911 hearing is not a criminal case, consider it as the same as a grand jury. It may not yield justice, but it's a start to finding out what went on in both the Clinton and Bush administrations as concerning the 911 attacks.

Amen to that. If for no other reason than to prevent such a lapse in national security in the future.

Ron

03/28/2004 11:46:39 AM · #913

Ron, thanks so much for your response but my questions were rhetorical in nature and weren't meant to be taken in the literal sense requiring verbatim citation of the rules. My point in making them was in reference to your statement in your post below:

"Is there some rationale that you can provide that indicates that Condoleeza lies when she is NOT under oath? If not, then why would you not believe what she has already said publicly?"

Why should we not believe anybody who testifies before any kind of hearing or court and require them to be under oath? If I should be required to believe Condileezza's public discourse, then I should also be able to take what Richard Clarke states in public, and in his book, without requiring him to testify under oath...or, for that matter, anyone else in the 911 hearings, or anyone testifying in any courtroom or hearing in this country.

I can only conclude that the reasons that Condi declined testifying under oath was that either she, or the WH, did not want certain facts (non security) to come out or that they didn't want to expose her to possible perjury prosecution in the future. By not testifying under oath she leaves more questions lurking in the minds of the public than if she had and refused to answer certain questions. My opinion anyway... and at this time when many in this country question the veracity of any statement made by the Bush admin it becomes clearer that gov't transparency is lacking in some important areas.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't think it will be coming out before the elections, Ron. I believe the WH has already stated that, but I could be wrong.

I hope so. If the report does NOT come out within 6-months or so, I would be inclined to conclude that the white house is stonewalling.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Can you provide some rationale for why Richard Clarke was required to be under oath when he testified, or for that matter, anyone that has testified in the 911 hearings so far?

Yeah. It's in the Rules for the hearings - to wit:
-------------------------------------------------
2.6. Conduct of Hearing.
(a) All hearings of the committee shall be public unless the committee, by two-thirds vote of all its members, determines that a hearing should not be open to the public in a particular instance.
(b) The chair shall preside at all hearings of the committee and shall conduct the examination of witnesses alone or supervise examination by other members of the committee, the committeeâ��s counsel, or members of the committeeâ��s staff who are so authorized.

2.7. Oath or Affirmation.
(a) All testimony given or adduced at a hearing shall be under oath or affirmation unless the requirement is dispensed with in a particular instance by a majority vote of the committee members present at the hearing. Any member may administer an oath or affirmation to a witness at a hearing of the committee.
(b) The form of the oath or affirmation shall be: "Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
-------------------------------------------------
Note that the rules allow for (but do not require) the occasion of testimony in private, and not under oath, as has been requested by Dr. Rice.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Can you provide any rationale for why anybody in any courtroom in the judicial system should be under oath, or is that just left for the poor (literally) slob that has been alleged to commit any petty crime?

Primarily so that such testimony, if found to be intentionally false, can result in prosecution in and of itself ( perjury ). This is intended to be a deterrent to perjury - and it's not limited to poor slobs, but is applicable to all who present testimony in either criminal or civil court, or in grand jury investigations, including those who are granted immunity from prosecution otherwise in the case at hand.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
While the 911 hearing is not a criminal case, consider it as the same as a grand jury. It may not yield justice, but it's a start to finding out what went on in both the Clinton and Bush administrations as concerning the 911 attacks.

Amen to that. If for no other reason than to prevent such a lapse in national security in the future.

Ron

03/28/2004 01:29:53 PM · #914

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I understand your point about why we should/or should not believe anyone NOT under oath, but you know as well as I that even UNDER oath, some people will give false testimony. Some are even introduced UNDER OATH as "hostile witnesses". It is ALWAYS up to the judge or jury to discern who is telling the truth - in fact, if everyone told the truth, we would have no need of trials at all.
For the 9/11 investigation, as regards Dr. Rice, the rules ARE, unfortunately, a very important issue. Especially the rules regarding contempt and compulsion:
------------------------------------------------
2.9. Contempt.
(a) A person shall be in contempt if the person:
(1) Fails or refuses to appear in compliance with a subpoena or, having appeared, fails or refuses to testify under oath or affirmation;
(2) Fails or refuses to answer any relevant question or fails or refuses to furnish any relevant book, paper, or other document subpoenaed by or on behalf of the committee; or
(3) Commits any other act or offense against the committee, which, if committed against the Legislature or either house thereof, would constitute contempt.

3.2. Compelling Testimony.
The chair may order a witness to answer any relevant question or furnish any relevant book, paper or other document, the production of which has been required by subpoena duces tecum. Unless the order is overruled by majority vote of the committee members present, disobedience shall constitute contempt.
------------------------------------------------
As I stated earlier, if, in the judgement of the panel, a question was relevant, and Dr. Rice was under oath, even if the answer were compromising to national security, she could be held in contempt if she refused to answer truthfully. Namely, she CANNOT refuse to answer a question unless she is willing to spend a year in jail for EACH such refusal.
In her speeches to the media, SHE chooses what to say or not say, what questions to answer or not answer. Under oath, before the panel, she could not exercise such discretion.
Since Richard Clarke has a "tell all" book out which, you have to admit, is more negative toward the Bush administration than to the Clinton administration, I believe ( this is my opinion, not one that I have read anywhere else ) that the panel was inclined to believe that his testimony would be biased against the Bush administration - hence they required that he testify under oath. Again, that's just my opinion - I know that if I were a panel member, that's what I would surmise.
I know that it APPEARS that Dr. Rice and the President have something to hide by her claim to executive privilege - but I would rather that, than tip our hands even further to al-Qaeda, by telling them what we were doing ( and probably are STILL doing ) to counter their operational abilities. So YES, they have something to hide, but I believe that it is more related to national security than personal culpability. But that's just MY opinion. I certainly respect your right to hold a different opinion. As the old saying goes, if we agreed on everything, one of us would be superfluous.

Ron

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/28/2004 01:42:53 PM · #915

Originally posted by RonB:

... So YES, they have something to hide, but I believe that it is more related to national security than personal culpability. But that's just MY opinion. I certainly respect your right to hold a different opinion. As the old saying goes, if we agreed on everything, one of us would be superfluous.

Ron

Thanks Ron, well-put. I have a gut-level feeling that there will be plenty of personal culpability to go around if "the truth" ever comes out, but that's obviously just my educated evaluation, and not based on and personal knowledge of the principals involves ... I guess that makes us both necessary.

03/28/2004 01:54:02 PM · #916

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I don't think it will be coming out before the elections, Ron. I believe the WH has already stated that, but I could be wrong.

FYI, I just read on the Newsweek Online web site that the commission's report is due out in July. Good news.

Ron

03/28/2004 02:16:32 PM · #917

I would question that about the report coming out in July because the hearings don't end until the middle of that month and they will require probably quite a bit of time to organize and make conclusions, write up the report, as well as, consult with the different parties involved. In addition, I'm not sure about this, but I do believe that it was the Bush WH that requested the inquiry be held and so they may have the final say about when it is released to the general public. You can be sure that if it's contents are more in favor with what the dems want, they will want it released before the elections, and vice-versa if it is in favor with what the repubs want.

There will be two days of public hearings for each of the next three months and each set of hearings will deal with a different time frame and aspect of the 911 attacks. The hearings which just took place a few days ago only dealt with policy of the two administrations as to how they were dealing with, and their future plans, for dealing with terrorism in this country.

I would hope that the report will come out in a timely manner before the elections so that the general public could make a more informed choice.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't think it will be coming out before the elections, Ron. I believe the WH has already stated that, but I could be wrong.

FYI, I just read on the Newsweek Online web site that the commission's report is due out in July. Good news.

Ron

03/28/2004 02:29:31 PM · #918

From the testimony I heard this past week from people like Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, Richard Clarke, Donald Rumsfeld and the other cast of characters and clowns who have testified before the 911 commission, that they have already disclosed in general terms, and in terms that do not compromise national security, what they were doing, what they are doing now, and what they were planning to do about terrorism nationwide, and around the globe. MY GUESS is that Condi could have done the same and not revealed anything important about our defenses as relating to national security. And for the life of me, I don't understand why she can't testify under oath in private before the 911 investigating panel. I am totally befuddeled about that.

Originally posted by RonB:

I know that it APPEARS that Dr. Rice and the President have something to hide by her claim to executive privilege - but I would rather that, than tip our hands even further to al-Qaeda, by telling them what we were doing ( and probably are STILL doing ) to counter their operational abilities. So YES, they have something to hide, but I believe that it is more related to national security than personal culpability. But that's just MY opinion. I certainly respect your right to hold a different opinion. As the old saying goes, if we agreed on everything, one of us would be superfluous.

Ron

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/31/2004 03:01:53 AM · #919

Well, Dr. Rice will now speak for the record ... although I'm unclear on just why Mr. Bush has a problem with testifying under oath -- surely he wouldn't LIE to us would he?

In the meantime, here's another view from someone who was on the scene:

Clarke's Public Service
By Tom Maertens
Star Tribune

Sunday 28 March 2004

MANKATO, MINN. â�� Richard Clarke, who served as the national coordinator for counterterrorism in the White House, argues in his new book, â��Against All Enemies,â�� that the Bush administration ignored the threat from Al-Qaida and instead chose to fight â��the wrong warâ�� by attacking Iraq.

The troops who could have been used in Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida were instead held back for the planned invasion of Iraq. In contrast to the 150,000 men sent to Iraq, only about 11,500 troops were sent to Afghanistan, a force smaller than the New York City police. The result is that Bin Laden and his followers escaped across the border into Pakistan.

Meanwhile, American troops are being killed in Iraq, our army is stretched to the breaking point, our international credibility is at an all-time low, Muslims are further radicalized to join a jihad against us, and our relations with key allies have been damaged.

The Bush administration has counterattacked furiously, impugning Clarkeâ��s facts, his timing and his motives. Marc Racicot, chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign, said on national television that Clarkeâ��s charges were â��almost malevolent.â�� The qualifier â��almostâ�� is apparently meant to distinguish Clarke from someone genuinely malevolent â�� Saddam Hussein, perhaps.

Clarke was a colleague of mine for 15 months in the White House, under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Subsequently, I moved to the U.S. State Department as deputy coordinator for counterterrorism, and worked with him and his staff before and after 9/11.

My experience confirms what Clarke relates in his book. The Bush administration did ignore the threat of terrorism. It was focused on tax cuts, building a ballistic missile system, withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and rejecting the Kyoto Protocol.

Administration officials seemed to believe that the terrorist attacks on the United States in East Africa, and on the USS Cole, were due to Clintonâ��s moral failings. Since they didnâ��t share those weaknesses, and because President Bush had the blessing of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Justice Antonin Scalia, we would be spared any serious attack. Moral superiority would triumph.

I personally believe that Clarke was one of the most effective government officials I have ever worked with â�� most effective, but not the most loved. He has been described as a bureaucratic steamroller, and he no doubt ruffled some feathers, but who better to put in charge of counterterrorism? Unfortunately, he suffered the fate of Cassandra: He was able to foresee the future but not convince his leaders of the threat.

Despite its own failings, the Bush administration has conducted a scorched-earth smear campaign against Clarke, because his book threatens Bushâ��s carefully orchestrated image as a war president.

The president keeps repeating the mantra that America is safer now that Saddam is gone. But no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found in Iraq, and Bush now admits that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. The future of a nuclear-armed Pakistan is far more important to our security than was Iraq.

We have also learned from former Treasury Secretary Paul Oâ��Neill that the president spoke of overthrowing Saddam from the day he arrived in office. Clarke reports that on Sept. 12, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was already advocating bombing Iraq, even though Clarke told him that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack.

We also know that some people who became members of the Bush administration had been advocating the overthrow of Saddam since 1996. The presidentâ��s claim that this was a war of necessity was never supported by the facts. But what better to stir up patriotic fervor in the run-up to an election than a war?

Is this too cynical?

Karl Rove, the presidentâ��s political adviser, is said to reread Machiavelli the way the devout study their Bibles. It was the Bush-Rove team that deployed the scurrilous push-poll techniques against Sen. John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary. (Sample question: â��Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?â�� In reality, the brown-skinned child with McCain was his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, but the race-baiting worked and McCain was defeated.)

It was also Rove who in 2002 counseled Republican congressional candidates to â��run on the war.â�� This is a man who recognizes a potent political prop when he sees one. Is this the real reason for the invasion of Iraq? The Bush administrationâ��s other justifications donâ��t hold water.

The Bush-Cheney ads donâ��t show the dead or wounded from that war, of course, nor do the cheerleaders on Fox News, despite the nearly 4,000 casualties we have suffered in Iraq to date.

They donâ��t like to talk about the $160 billion we have spent to run the war either. That works out to $571 for each man, woman and child, or $2,285 for a family of four. And the cost is sure to go higher.

Clarkeâ��s gutsy insider recounting of events related to 9/11 is an important public service. From my perspective, the Bush administration has practiced the most cynical, opportunistic form of politics I witnessed in my 28 years in government: hijacking legitimate American outrage and patriotism over 9/11 to conduct a pre-ordained war against Saddam Hussein.

That invasion was then misleadingly packaged as a war on terrorism and used to sell more tax cuts, the USA Patriot Act, oil drilling in ANWR, exemptions to environmental laws and other controversial programs. Those who have opposed the misguided invasion have been labeled appeasers and unpatriotic for failing to support â��the troopsâ�� â�� meaning the presidentâ��s policies.

As Clarke has observed, the real war is against Al-Qaida. Instead, the Bush administration has involved us in a breath takingly cynical, unprovoked war against Iraq, under false pretenses, which it now uses to justify the reelection of a president who has violated the public trust.

-------

Tom Maertens, now retired, also served as a Naval officer during the Vietnam era and a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/31/2004 03:18:24 AM · #920

And here's an interview with the former Navy spokesman for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

kaycee

Olympus C-750UZ

03/31/2004 07:53:21 AM · #921

Yet Clarke has often used the same excuse . . . amazingly, though, he wasn't harassed like Condi - I know the situation is different, but it is primarily so because the media has made it so.

1999: CLARKE DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!

But what's even better:

Clarke Transcript Refutes Current Stance

Fox news has posted a transcript of a press briefing held by former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke in August of 2002. The conversation was cleared for release by the White house earlier today. In the conversation Clarke refutes many accusations he makes in his book (the release date for the book was moved up from April to coincide with his testimony in front of the 9/11 commission). Here are some excerpts from the transcript:

FOXNews.com - Politics - Transcript: Richard Clarke August, 2002 Briefing

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

[...]

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies â�� and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer â�� last point â�� they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

[...]

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the â�� general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

[...]

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

[...]

CLARKE: And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

Keep in mind that Clarke (did I mention he has a new book out?) was in charge of counterterrorism for Clinton (as well as Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush), and was held over by the current Bush administration in order to maintain continuity in what they saw as a critical issue. Clarke is trying to divert attention away from the fact that he was in charge of the "counterterrorism as law-enforcement" policy that was standard procedure in prior administrations. He admits in this transcript that it was President Bush who finally changed the policy, "from one of rollback to one of elimination."

03/31/2004 11:56:32 AM · #922

Can you cite the article where Richard Clarke refused to testify under oath in 1999 that you refer to?

As far as the August 2002 transcript you have quoted, I believe that was already explained by Richard Clarke in the hearings. At the time he was part of the Bush administration and was asked to put in a positive light the Bush plan for fighting terrorism. He stated under oath that he had done the same thing for all of the presidents he worked for and it was expected of him. As part of any presidential team you are not going to speak out against the administration you are working for.

Also, the transcript talks about the long term plans and strategies for fighting al Qaeda and the difficulties in making decisions about what to do about it by the clinton administration, which others in the Bush admin already agreed with when they testified under oath in front of the 911 panel. It does not address the immediate issue of the knowledge of impending attacks that's been alleged that the Bush administration knew about in the early summer of 2001 and did little, if anything to stop.

Originally posted by kaycee:

03/31/2004 12:11:00 PM · #923

Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who was hired shortly after Sept. 11 to translate intelligence gathered over the previous year related to the 9/11 attacks testified under oath before the 911 commission. She says the FBI had information that an attack using airplanes was being planned before Sept. 11 and calls Condoleezza Rice's claim the White House had no specific information on a domestic threat or one involving planes "an outrageous lie."

YOu can hear an interview with her at:
www.democracynow.org

03/31/2004 12:43:10 PM · #924

Originally posted by GeneralE:

And here's an interview with the former Navy spokesman for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

i heard him speak on NPR last week. the things he had to say, especially considering his position, were defenetly something to turn ears and heads to whats really going on.
he also said many other high ranking officers around him where doubting there orders in many cases, though, they were not likely to voice them publicly as for the most part, that would mean the end of there career.