When Frist was on the Senate floor he didn't actually know if Clarke had lied under oath. Frist accuses Clarke of perjury without evidence. And Michael this isn't about pro-war versus anti-war it is about the truth and how to prevent another terrorist attack. You know, learn from your mistakes.

There is nothing wrong about investigating the intelligence/security/policy "failures" culminating in 9/11. The "Clarke" approach is the wrong way to do it. The sanctimonious grandstanding, the exaggeration and personalization of the charges, all of this is so corrosive and divisive it can't possibly contribute to any meaningful debate. Franklin Roosevelt's war cabinet could not have functioned in this environment. Why Operation Torch? Why Morocco when the problem is Nazi Germany? I mean Japan?

I also think it is unimportant whether Clarke "lied". It's all a game anyway. Whatever Richard Clarke testified to earlier, whatever, will be reconciled with his more recent statements by the Democrats, the Josh Marshalls, the Matt Yglesias's, etc. and found entirely and "subtly" consistent. We've already seen how Wesley Clark's fawning praise over Bush's conduct of the Iraq war was seriously found consistent with Clark's later anti-war positions. It has nothing to do with substance, it's all form. Scoring points. It's the Lewinsky-ization of politics that has now taken over even national security. Osama must be laughing in his cave: I would be.

No way to fight a war.

Gabriel,

Osama must be laughing in his cave: I would be.

I fully agree with you. This whole Clarke fiasco is further proof that Osama is right. He knows his enemy better than we know ours. We are a weak and decadant nation ripe for defeat. We haven't learned a damn thing from 9/11.

This Clarke affair is the most discouraging event yet in the War. The NSC is supposed to be and has traditionally been a non-partisan organization so that staffers from prior administrations could continue on to serve in subsequent administrations. This tradition has enabled us to avoid institutional amnesia every time an administration changes. This tradition is what enabled Clarke to serve several administrations.

It also put Clarke in a position to be recruited by the Kerry campaign to stab Bush in the back just in time for the election. Kerry saw an embittered bureaucrat who was largely responsible for the failed Clinton counter-terrorism policy and was demoted under Bush for this failure. Kerry exploited this to his personal political advantage at great harm to the nation. He's been doing this for over three decades with great success. Why would he stop now?

What Kerry and Clarke have done is unprecedented and it has caused irreparable damage to our national security services. From this point forward, new administrations will have no choice but to clean house and appoint political loyalists to any position of any importance. This Clarke affair is a disaster. It is further proof that the Democrats cannot be trusted with our national security.

Kerry will get away with this because the media is on his side. I no longer believe that America will determine the right course of action through analysis. We are going to have to learn through bitter suffering. We won't learn until we've touched the flame. Hopefully by then it won't be too late, but I'm beginning to believe it already is.

I've always had faith that the American people will make wise judgements when it counted most. But I think that in this election, we are being tested and we are going to fail. I hope I'm wrong, but I see nothing to make me feel otherwise.

Unless the elite media begins to challenge Kerry's record, I think Kerry will win and America will suffer. I don't think they will because they are working on his behalf. They spend months hyping the Bush was "AWOL" story and the Clarke debacle, but bury the fact that Kerry negotiated with the the North Vietnamese communists and was involved with an organization that debated assasinating American congressmen. As long as the media continues to shill for Kerry, Americans will be ignorant of the truth and will therefore make the wrong choice in November.

OT

Several European politicians are coming together in an effort to throw Bush out of office, on "behalf of Europe and the world".

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article205653.ece

I wonder who is working on America's behalf?

It's a set up.

Kerry has already challenged Bush to charge Clarke (ignoring the fact that that's not something presidents get to do). Kerry would love the opportunity to have the defense go on a 'fishing expedition' through the adminstration's record. Both he and Clarke know this makes a trial impossible. Clarke could always keep claiming that there was one more document which was still classified, and therefore withheld, which would exonerate him.

Michael, Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence is on the record saying that Clark said things under oath in 2002 that are 180 degrees removed from what he said to the 9-11 panel.

I'd say there's some "there", there.

http://volokh.com/2004_03_21_volokh_archive.html#108017989053447189

The above best represents my sentiments on this issue at this point in time. We, outside the circle of real knowledge just don't have sufficient evidence to determine where the truth of all this lies.....at least not yet.

And I do find the whole affair rather perplexing. While I have no idea whether Clarke is lying or is dead on accurate, I do have to wonder about his motivation for going public with this information now.

After all, he would have to know that if he had waited 10 yr to release this info, he would have faced significant rebuttal and questions. But doing so NOW....? How could he possibly not know he was setting himself up for some SERIOUS ridicule and possibly outright character assasination.(?)

Would he really put himself through all that just for the $$ derived from the book sales? Would you? I can't begin to imagine how much it would take for me to consider putting myself through such scrutiny.

It would seem to me he must truly believe what he is saying...which obviously doesn't it make it so, 'but'..........

It looks like most of the commenters here have decided to read only one half of Michael's post, the part where Clarke is accused of perjury. Now, since Republicans always tell the truth and liberals (of which Clarke is now mysteriously one, despite his hawkishness, Republican party affiliation, and bipartisan service to presidents of both parties) always lie, it's obvious that this means that Frist is a paragon of virtue and Clarke is a dirty perjuror who will be found out when his testimony (not all of it, of course, just the parts selected for declassification by the administration) is declassified.

Naturally, the stopped reading as soon as they got to the part about the consequences if Frist should be shown to be lying. Of course, the fact that Frist immediately backpedaled from his strong statements, saying he didn't really know if there were inconsistencies or not, and the fact that Bob Graham, who was actually there for the original testimony, says there were no contradictions and has pressed for the testimony to be declassified IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Perhaps if you stopped thinking in black and white for a moment, you'd understand Michael's concern with Frist's words and share his worry over the long term fallout of careless reactionary statements such as these.

Clarke has ALREADY been proven a liar, via his statements to the press from the same year.

There is no reasonable reason to think that Clarke didn't say the same thing to Congress that he said to the press.

When the testimony is released, it will contain the same "five fold increase" language his press briefing did. It was, quite obviously, his spin at the time.

What then? Michael, would you actually support tossing Clarke in jail and holding his supporters accountable for conspiracy to commit perjury?

Oh - and Frist was ON the congressional panel that heard Clarke's 2002 testimony.

If anyone should know, it is him. Of course, Nancy Pelosi said there is no difference between his testimony from last week and 2002 and she was ALSO there.

Looks like the declassification will catch multiple lairs.

Good.

Okay, trying to think in grey here, just like my idol, John F'ing Kerry.
I see nothing in Michael's original comments as to a reason why he speculates Clarke might not have been lying under oath.
Frist is not speculating, he is going by what Porter Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has said, that Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 panel is 180 degrees removed from the testimony he gave to the joint House/Senate committee back in 2002.
Graham is setting up the talking points for the Democrats; when the administration refuses to declassify the entire testimony, the Democrats will claim that the portions not declassified are the ones that would embarrass the administration.

Frist's comments were made in the heat of battle, without much time for reflection.

Clarke took a long time to write his book, and clearly anticipated an Administration counterattack. He knew he would be likely to testify under oath. Thus, unless he is stupid, which no one has yet charged him with, he will not have written anything in his book that could get him nailed for perjury.

Ergo, Frist is grandstanding.

If Clarke were a real "patriot" intent on illuminating prior and ongoing weaknesses in our intelligence approach to terrorism, he would have exposed in an even-handed manner the real flaws that existed in that approach in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Instead, in the midst of promoting his book and himself as some kind of heroic whistleblower who could have saved the world (but for Bush), he has presented a prima facie implausible version of administration terrorism policy pre-9/11 irresponsibly mixed in with the larger debate over Iraq and has lowered us all into the gutter and assured the politicization (and hence uselessness) of the exercise the 9-11 commission is undertaking. Clarke's inconsistency is so obvious from the record that the further charge that he is lying is only one of degree. This guy's no hero. He's a war profiteer and egomaniacal hypocrit doing a great disservice to his country. That's what he needs to apologize for.

I don't intend that as a partisan comment. The ridiculous Clarke circus is more just further evidence of the degeneration of the political culture from reasoned debate to a mind-numbing point scoring contest whipped into a frenzy by the media. The Republicans were frankly just as bad under Clinton and under a Gore (or Kerry) presidency, I have no trouble envisioning a role reversal. The difference here is that the partisan politicization and trivialization of the debate concerns national security, and that did not use to be the case, at least not to the present extent. Where is the water's edge?

Maybe there is some consolation in knowing that in the U.K. it's apparently even worse: there you can be in favor of the enemy in wartime, speak out against the government, get paid for it by the enemy, and still serve as a Member of Parliament.

How would Frist know what's in Clarke's testimony to Congress? Does the Senate Majority Leader have some sort of access to classified testimony before a Congressional committee?

If Frist was just speaking in the heat of the moment, he may not know what the testimony was. He may just have been making a speculative attack on Clarke without actually thinkin about the real implications of what he was saying. The fact that he tried to backpedal afterwards would suggest that he doesn't know.

I completely agree with Gabriel Gonzalez. What we are watching is a game and nothing more. If anyone was serious about learning from mistakes, this whole hearing enterprise would be the last way to go about it. The surface is obvious: Neither Clinton nor Bush did enough against terrorism before 9/11.No surprise there (few would have before 9/11 anyway) and nothing said in all this brouhaha alters that banal truth in the slightest. And any details worth correcting are security secrets and can't be discussed in a public forum. This is a hideous waste of time and taxpayer money.

Look people, lets face facts straight on.

The great sin of Richard Clarke, is that he has told the truth. In the grand scheme of things, what he has said is not really all that devastating. He has detailed how the Clinton administration slowly but surely became more and more impressed with the seriousness of the threat, and began to move in the direction of dealing with it properly. But had great difficulties doing so. Clearly they did not behave ideally. But it is hard to imagine that any other administration would have done much better. It was a very new type of threat, the outlines of which were emerging bit by bit, and whose grave danger (that they would end up murdering thousands) was not really forseen by very many people on either side.

The Bushies took the handoff, and felt that they should work to understand the situation for themselves, and come up with their own long-term strategy to deal with it. Absent the knowledge of what was about to happen, that too seemed like a reasonable apporach at the time.

The problem for Clarke is that the Bush administration is in the process of promulgating a grand and glorious myth about themselves (I dont mean that as harshly as it sounds - all political campaigns and administrations try to do that). And the great Bush myth cannot accomodate the truth of how it is that they approached terrorism pre 9/11.

In an ideal world, Bush could stand up and say "yes, Clarke has it about right. We understood terrorism was serious, but we felt it important to take the time to come up with our own strategy. We didnt have the proper intel to see what was in the works. And so, looking back on things, I wish we had had that intel, or had move more aggressivly beforehand, but we did the best we could. And we have learned the necessary lessons...etc."

As an American citizen, and a democrat, I could accept that explanation. Of course, it wouldnt lead me to go out and vote for Bush, but it would not give me any new reason to vote against him. I would actually respect the guy a bit more for being honest.

But that is not the stratagy that rises to the top in our political culture. If Gore were president, he would probably do the same thing as Bush is doing. Slime and try to discredit the truth-teller. Defend the myth.

The perjury charge is absurd. And it does reveal the ugliness within Bill Frist - and has probably ruined his own presidential ambitions. This is the type of hatchet job you might ask a VP to do, but it sure aint presidential. Of course the "investigation" will get nowhere. Bush will not want a circus like that to dominate the campaign season. And we already have corroborating evidence, from unassaiable people like Gen. Hugh Shelton, that Clarke is telling the truth about Bush putting terrorism somewhat on the "back burner".

So if there is a perjury charge to make, it would be against the earlier testimony to Congress, not to his present testimony. And of course, in his earlier testimony, Clarke was speaking for the administration. There is NO chance that he was sent up to the Hill to testify without having his testimony cleared with Condi Rice. Shall we have this investigation to demonstrate that it actually was the administration that was lying to Congress? The partisan in me says "bring it on". The practical observer in me says "aint gonna happen".

The media and the anti-war brigades who lionized a perjurer as a hero are going to feel pretty darned stupid

Don't be silly, Michael. If this should come to pass, Clarke will be cast as "innocency martyred for speaking the truth". There will be interviews with questions such as "After your long service to your country, is it difficult to be persecuted by the Bush administration?" Worried editorials will be penned, news analyses will be published. The story won't be the allegations; the story will be the response.

And if the underlying story should break through, certainly there will be experimentation along the lines tano suggests: that actually Clarke was lying in 2002, at the behest of the Evil Bush, and only now has he been washed in the blood of the lamb, etc. The question of why, if this is so, he didn't either resign immediately, or come clean once he quit, will be left unexplored.

God damn, I'm getting cynical.

Clarke seems to have been telling the truth so far, and since he has to have been the first person to actually go on record and use the active tense to describe his own pre-9/11 screw-ups, he's going to have the support of the public, too. Frist, on the other hand, immediately backed down from his accusation, saying he didn't even know if the earlier testimony contradicted anything.

What I wanna know is, what does Condy Rice have to do to get fired? She is to policy-making what Steve Lavin was to coaching.

HA says:

"From this point forward, new administrations will have no choice but to clean house and appoint political loyalists to any position of any importance."

Clarke was a political loyalist: he was (still is perhaps) a registered Republican career officer who served under 4 administrations. He has clashed with Clinton adm. officials as much or more as he did with the Bushies.

You are still refusing the simple point of fact Clarke has made, and that has not been refuted by anybody (of course, it's hard to refute a point you even refuse to address): that Bush officials were obsessed with Iraq and dismissed the importance of any intelligence that couldn't be directly used to kindle political support for an invasion of Iraq. That has been said by many others, and indeed has pretty obvious to any less than credulous observer. Clarke has just added insider's corroboration, and nothing he added has so far failed the test of evidence.

I think you're coming around to at least addressing the situation seriously, Michael. Kudos.

It's been touched on briefly here, but let's take Clarke's consistency out of the picture here for a moment: what does Clarke say NOW, and has it been either corroborated or refuted on a factual basis? If you are the White House, and you have refutive evidence, you'd provide it...right? "This meeting did not occur; this plan was approved on this date, these meetings took place, this focus was approved by the President," etc. Instead all we get are backtracks. The WH has been forced to admit more than once that what they claimed was not true, actually was.

Now, what if you DIDN'T have such evidence? Your only options would be character assassination and an attempt to show inconsistency. And not only do they have to show a specific discrepancy in the factual assertions, they also have to prove that the 2002 testimony was in fact the accurate one. Otherwise, that Clarke lied in 2002 is completely subordinate to the fact that what he says now IS accurate.

Regarding one of the comments here: Graham is picking up the Democratic talking points? Perhaps so. But Frist and Goss aren't? C'mon. And they are the ones who lodged criminal accusations.

Roark: What then? Michael, would you actually support tossing Clarke in jail and holding his supporters accountable for conspiracy to commit perjury?

Yes to the first part. But the second? Who actually thinks Clarke is perjuring himself and is a hero for that? I'm sure his supporters believe him. They aren't involved in any conspiracy.

Having read Clarke's book immediately prior to his testimony (I actually finished it as he was testifying then went and read the transcripts), my reaction was one of shock after reading the transcripts of his testimony. The book is, for the most part, calm mostly dispassionate and when fact driven, compelling. The testimony before Congress sounds like it was from another person. Sure from place to place in the book a personal attack is awkwardly inserted, but away from those points the media chose to emphasize? There just wasn't a lot of political "there" there. The Clinton administration and the CIA and FBI take far worse beatings than the Bush admin.

Prior to reading the transcripts? I didn't for a second doubt Clarke's factual recollections (dates, meetings etc.). His judgements were an entirely different matter IMO. His analysis of events, policy and people are routinely at least questionable.

Given then the contradictions already determined among his testimony, book and other statements? Clarke must be counted as an unreliable witness (though I would not use the term liar).

I had assumed (silly me) that Frist wouldn't have opened his trap unless he had Clarke in the bag. That is, that he had specific data and thought he could get that declassified. If either one of those isn't true? he's unfit for the leadership.

A lot of people here seem to be taking the increasing heat and vehemence of Clarke's accusations as evidence that he is "unreliable." But isn't it just a bit possible that it's a reaction to the incredible nastyness of the campaign the White House has launched to discredit him and paint him as bitter, partisan, and confused? They have shown already that they aren't above lying in order to do so, see Hadley's denial of the meeting between Clarke and Bush after 9/11. In the interview on 60 Min. to rebut Clarke, he said: "We can not find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the President ever occurred." When she replied that they had other witnesses to the exchange, the WH position on the meeting went 180 degrees. Now they're saying that "We are not denying such a meeting took place. It probably did." (CBS) While they may not have had "evidence" of the exchange, they simply had to be aware of it if it took place. Or are we to believe that they never asked the President? Maybe he forgot? This is not an honest mistake, it's a naked attempt to dissemble and paint Clarke as a liar. In light of the willingness of the WH to stoop to such a level, is it any wonder that Clarke has taken the gloves off in return? Gabriel Gonzalez laments that "If Clarke were a real "patriot" intent on illuminating prior and ongoing weaknesses in our intelligence approach to terrorism, he would have exposed in an even-handed manner the real flaws that existed in that approach in both the Clinton and Bush administrations." But from what I've heard about the book (supported by spc67's reading of it) this is exactly what he was doing. It wasn't until after the WH started attacking him that his accusations became more pointed. Isn't it possible that he realized that an "even-handed manner" was going to be impossible and decided to let it all hang out?

As for all the questions about the timing of the release being to maximize book sales, it seems to me that it would also maximize readership. If you write a book which you believe to be important, wouldn't you want as many people to read it as possible? And wouldn't releasing it during a time of maximal relevence maximize both the readership of the book and therefore the impact of the critiques therein?

Gabriel Gonzalez, I love you man. But I don't see all this hot air as a waste of time. My take is that the American public has an extremely underrated bullshit filtration ability. So yeah, a lot of crap is being pumped through the media now, but some real information is getting out too, and the conventional wisdom in the media isn't necessarily what's getting absorbed by the citizenry.

Tano, Clarke only makes sense if you buy his idea that you can wage a "war on terror" on a cell-by-cell basis. If you don't buy that, his conclusions (and especially his Marc Antony impersonation) come across as distasteful at best.

But isn't it just a bit possible that it's a reaction to the incredible nastyness of the campaign the White House has launched to discredit him and paint him as bitter, partisan, and confused?

Smokey, that 60 Minutes interview was the first salvo in this pissing contest, I think. Of course, it seems like Clarke believes he is, in fact, without sin, so tossing that first kidney stone was thoroughly justified.

Smokey--

It's not so clear what party Clarke belongs to. He registered Republican in the primary to vote for McCain. Do you think he voted for Bush? Gore? Nader? in the general election? His campaign contributions went to Democrats. A minor point, I know, but don't build his credibility on a doubtful allegiance.

It looks to me like Clarke's allegiance is to himself.

This exchange to me, is what it all boils down to:

GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

Agree that the commisssion is a waste. Some Dems are using the commission for political spitball and and some Reps have sunk to the same. As to Clarke - Starting with WTC '93 there were several other acts of terrorism during the Clinton era when Clarke was "Mr. Terrorism U.S.A." It seems clear Clarke was lobbying for action from Clinton but was thwarted. Still those acts did occur under his aegis. Next comes 9/11. This week Clarke clearly softened his once harsh criticism of the Clinton team and (unprecedentedly for an intelligence professional) hammered a current Administration in time of war. That alone makes him ignoble. It is also widely accepted that the man was deeply steamed at having been passed over for promotion. Clarke was in the top spot for every terrorist atttack from WTC '93 through WTC '01. And he's pissed about not being rewarded! If (I'm no mindreader) this perceived slight curdled him that badly then I feel better off that he's gone. An ego like that, careerism that blind to the importance of results should be reserved for studio heads.

Nice of you e-patriots on here to run down a guy who did service in the government for - what, 30 years? Eleven of them in the White House, under four presidents? Now he comes out with a book (which is on its way to me now, so all I know so far is what is reprinted) that criticizes both the Clinton and Bush administrations, but because it conflicts with Bush's main myths - excuse me, I mean campaign issues - the right goes into slime-and-defend overdrive.

His points, as I understand them, sound pretty familiar:

1. Clinton could have gotten the Predators armed with missiles and gone after bin Laden before he left office, but neither the military and the CIA wanted to take responsibility for the operation, and Clinton didn't push them. Both FBI and the Pentagon struggled with Clarke over counter-terror turf, and Clinton didn't devote enough time to it to give Clarke the leverage he thought he needed.

2. Bush didn't want to get into the boring but important work of counter-terrorism, which he called "swatting at flies" (including two flies that were on planes on September 11.) Instead, he wanted a grand, pie-in-the-sky strategery complete with built-in photo ops and a possible tie-in to Iraq and missile defense.

3. Bush pulled surveillance assets and specialized military teams which were hunting top al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and inserted them into Iraq to prepare for the invasion and find Saddam.

4. Bush spent $180 billion (so far) on Iraq, which had nothing to do with al Qaeda or any terror threat against the US, instead of using the cash to do the boring but important work of hardening all those US targets which are still vulnerable to terrorism: trains, ports, food supply, power supply, etc.

5. Bin Laden predicted that the US response to 9/11 would be to invade an oil-producing Muslim country that had nothing to do with the attacks. Bush fulfilled that prediction, making bin Laden look correct about our motives.

But keep on doing the slime-and-defend, folks. I don't know how it's playing in the polls yet, but I am sure personal attacks on people who have devoted their entire lives to protecting the country play well with the swing voters.

Pat Curley...

Was it you, Pat, who was commenting on the last post saying that you'd vote for Evan Bayh if he was from your state? If it was you, then we need to talk.

As a lifelong citizen of the great state of Indiana and former Democrat-State-Party intern, let me tell you a thing or two about your pal across the aisle, Evan Bayh:

First of all, Evan Bayh is one of the biggest dicks I've ever met. Secondly, the guy is about as principled as an aardvark. Look up the words "soulless centrism" in the dictionary and you'd find Evan Bayh's picture. And, last but not least, he was a downright crappy Governor from the very beginning.

I admire that you're willing to vote for the "right Democrats" in a "heartbeat", Pat. It says alot about your character that you reason things out. But Evan Bayh is not the "right" anything, Democrat or otherwise. His brand of centrism is, in a nutshell, everything that's wrong about most centrists: No bold positions on anything, ever.

There's "inside-the-box" centrism and then there's "outside-the-box" centrism. Like Totten, I'm much more of an outside-the-box radical than an inside-the-box partisan. It's really merely a matter of balls, you see: More John McCain, less Evan Bayh.

If you've really got your heart set on looking for political heroes from Indiana, take it from a Democrat who's willing to vote for the "right" Republicans when I say you ought look no further than Richard Lugar. I've met him as well and, let me tell you, the guy's just about as genuine as they get: Like the sweetest grandfather figure. He's in Washington for all the right reasons and he's saved this State's ass on more than one occasion.

I wish to God the Democrats had someone like Lugar in the Senate, someone with that kind of gravitas when it comes to foreign policy. He was probably one of only a handful of experts that TRULY saw 9/11 coming years before it did. And he's single-handedly disarmed half of Russia's nuclear stockpiles. If the terrorists still haven't gotten their hands on a leftover Soviet nuke it's probably only thanks to Dick Lugar. And he voted against the farm bill!!! Talk about principle. He knew it was bad for farmers and publicly said as much in bucking the White House on it. In Indiana, that takes a hell of alot of guts.

When the Democrats lost control of the Senate in 2002, I was heartbroken...heartbroken, that is to say, with one exception: The silver-lining of knowing Dick Lugar was back in control of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he belongs.

As for all this Clarke crap, here's my two-cents:

Every time a former insider comes out in criticism of an Administration, be it Democrat or Republican, there's always two sides...

One that says the person is of only the purest motives and is telling the truth, and the other that claims it to be nothing more than sour grapes and a bunch of lies. Historically, as with most things in Washington, the truth can be found somewhere in between.

Odds are that Richard Clarke is telling the truth, much in the way that Paul O' Neill was telling the truth, AND that his motives are far from innocent in doing so. He's pissed off at the Bushies and he's letting them have it. This phenomenon is nothing new.

And Richard Clarke is no partisan by the way, to all those who for some reason seem to assume he is. If you guys haven't noticed, his views throughout the 1980s and 1990s placed him squarely within the Republican hardliners' camp. He writes warmly of his relationship with Richard Perle, has flat-out said he won't work in a Kerry Administration, was once a registered Republican, and is fundamentally attacking Bush from the Right...not the Left. Perhaps, he's the NeoCon with the balls enough to call Bush out for having been all bark and no bite this entire time and the Administration is scared shitless of him because they can't even get their story straight.

At the end of the day, the White House has never been confronted with such a credible and nonpartisan critic on the issue of terrorism and they're falling all over themselves to discredit him. Clarke's reportedly got a reputation for not being a guy to f*** with and, in their arrogance, the Bush Administration has finally pissed off the wrong dude.

Bottom Line...with all the general arrogance and WMD-jokes coming out of Bush Central these days, right or wrong, I'm glad someone has finally come along to bring these guys back down to earth. It's about time. A little humility could go a long way.

And Another Thing...

Everybody needs to stop fucking calling everybody else a "troll" for having different views. It's getting annoying and alot of you guys are hardly in any position to be pointing the finger. Bush isn't a saint and he isn't the antichrist, so everyone just relax and be groovy for a change.

And no more personal attacks! They're why I've stopped coming around as much. We're all too intelligent for that kind of crap.

And Another, Another Thing...

Kudos to Bill Frist. He's playing Senate Majority Leader the way it's supposed to be played: Ruthlessly.

Frist gets it. Daschle could learn a thing or two from the guy. This is how politics works, ladies and gentlemen: It's what made Lyndon Johnson the greatest Majority Leader of all-time.

Get real, Michael. You know as much.

Grant,

What's your beef with Evan Bayh? Whenever I've seen him interviewed, he seems like one of the last Democratic grown-ups. Not that you can really tell much about someone from the occasional interview.

HA...

Just trust me on this one, bro. It's not even so much the politics as much as it is the man. Well, okay, it IS the politics too in so much as I know of no one who is more poll-dependent in making decisions than Evan Bayh.

Grant - Any examples?

But don't get me wrong, though. Evan Bayh is a pure political genius. He's a Democrat Senator from Indiana, for Christ's sake! You gotta be walkin' on water to pull that one off.

And it's another reason he shouldn't be VP. His vacated Senate seat would go Republican for sure. Probably for the next 20 years. Better Evan Bayh than Dan Burton, if you ask me.

There are examples but examples miss the point...

Ever notice how John Kerry has a "yes, but" answer to everything? Ever notice how he has this uncanny ability about him to give two answers to the same question all in one sitting?

Evan Bayh is 10x worse. That's my point. It's squishy centrism to the extreme.

Grant,

You seem sensible in most respects, but what's the deal with your attachment to the Democrats?

Grant,

Better Evan Bayh than Dan Burton, if you ask me.

I'd love to see a Senator Burton. Maybe he'd have the balls to filibuster UN funding the way Jesse Helms did.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/27/1080330984252.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040327/ap_on_re_us/un_overseeing_the_net

Being a Democrat and being sensible is not a contradiction in terms, well, at least not for the most part.

I think of myself as pretty much liberal but not what mostly passes for liberal these days. Most of today's mainstream "liberals" are a little off on principle.

On foreign policy, I'm a Liberal Interventionist. To be anti-war is not liberal, it's isolationist. Liberalism is not living in isolation.

On economic policy, I'm more or less a "Third Way" DLCer. More of a moderate, here, I'll admit. Privatize social security for all I care. I'm thoroughly pro-market. But I'm also thinking we ought to be doing more to solve some of the social problems, even if it means higher taxes. Conservative means to liberal ends.

And on social policy I'm pretty far to the Left in terms of principle: Thinking that the government ought not shove somebody else's subjective personal morality down my throat. I think the Democrats have got it all wrong on Affirmative Action and Political Correctness though, and maybe even Gun Control. I don't want leftist morality shoved down my throat, either, which is a strong point of difference between liberals and leftists...leftists, on social policy, are as anti-freedom as conservatives. I guess you could say there's a hell of a libertarian undercurrent, here. I hate guns and I find hunting to be repulsive, but that's just me and I've got no right to dictate my morals to anyone.

The Democratic Party is pretty screwed up on alot of things...the War on Terror, especially. But it's like a church who misinterprets the Gospels. The Gospels are still right, it's just the interpretation that's off. The church can be fixed. The Democrats are like the Church of Liberalism and I think they're misinterpreting alot of the Liberal-Gospel. My denomination is still of the liberal faith, however. Tony Blair attends my church. ;)

Sorry if any of that was sac-religious. I didn't mean it as such. It's just the best analogy of why I'm still a Democrat, albeit an independent one.

The independent nature is like a person who thinks of themselves as being a Christian first and a Presbyterian or Baptist or whatever, second. They come to their own conclusions and not just what the reverend or priest tells them. It's like being Christian but not being uber-religious about it. In terms of politics, the uber-religious are the dogmatic partisans. I'm not religious in any sense of the word.

Any of this making sense to you?

And if you're wondering just what in the hell "liberal interventionism" is, may I suggest the following link in its entirety...

www.coloquio.com/coloquioonline/0312dewitt.htm

It's rather lengthy but kinda says it all.

The denial of the existance of radical islamic terrorism began in 1979.

The failure to actively address radical islamic terrorism began the day after the 1993 WTC bombing.

Regarding Clarke and truth, let's look at the mans actions done during all his years working for the White House and not his words. The current adminstration acted correctly by not re-hiring Clarke since his actions over the past twenty years proved, without a doubt, to be ineffective.

Actions do speak louder than words.

So basically if someone as been registered as a whatever and then smears whatever you take em at their word?

Like when Kathy Wiley who had been a Democrat for 30 years, had helped Clinton's campaign and then comes out and says that Clinton touched her inappropriately.

So yall all took her word over Clinton's then right?

Or Broderick, who also campaigned for Clinton on numerous occasions. They are all just liars right, but this guy is telling the truth?

Please he, he was pissed at Condi for basically demoting him and he hated her for it. Now he has a little axe to grind on that little girl who stole my job.

Grant, it was me making the comment about Bayh and I'll admit that I don't know much about Bayh except for what I've seen on TV. He's been solid in the war on terror, and that's the big issue IMHO. However, I will take a wait and see attitude towards him.

To me, being called a soulless centrist is not an insult. That said, I do understand why centrists almost never succeed; as the old political adage points out, the problem with running in the middle is that you get shot at from both sides of the street.

We had a guy in Arizona running for Guv in AZ a few years ago as a New Democrat, named Paul Johnson. His opponent was a RINO named Jane Hull; in a reversal, the teachers' union endorsed Hull as did a former chair of the Democratic Party (bad blood). I voted for Johnson, and boy do I wish he'd won; Hull turned out to be a disaster (google alt fuels fiasco sometime).

Here's my take on McCain: petty, mean-spirited and vindictive. He's also what we Republicans like to call a sudden respect junkie. Republicans get sudden respect from the media when they attack other Republicans or praise a Democrat. If he were to ever get the nomination I'd be blogging as McCain Haters in a heartbeat, provided the other side didn't nominate another Kerry.

Thought you guys might get a kick out of something I just noticed. How did Clarke fend off comments that he was being partisan for the Democrats? By saying that the last time he had to declare his party affiliation was in 2000, when he requested a Republican ballot in his home state of Virginia.

Guess what? There was no Democratic primary in Virginia that year! I assume they have a caucus or something. So Clarke could not have asked for a Democratic ballot even if he wanted to.

While the claims and counter claims fly, this says it for me:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/17665.htm

Signed by various family members of those lost on 9-11.
Clarke, who may have some valid points, has taken the low road.

I just love the web, especially weblogs. A new era has dawned and big media/government types have not yet learned that they will be fact checked in the public eye.

Found this
facsimile
via
Donald Sensing

In it Rep Shays asks Clarke as of July 2000:
1. Why is there no integrated terrorist threat assessment?
2. When will a comprehensive strategic plan to combat terrorism be completed?
3. How does the government prioritize government-wide spending to combat terrorism?

Further, from what I see, Clarke never responded satisfactorily.

Rep Shays has also sent a scathing letter to the 911 commission:

at Vodkapundit

"Before September 11, 2001, we held twenty hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism issues. <b Mr. Clarke was of little help in our oversight . When he brief the Subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive. He said a comprehensive threat assessment, as recommended by GAO, was too difficult."

Seems to me that Clark is looking worse and worse.

I think this whole thread is a waste of time. It's like someone who's been bitten by a snake wasting time trying to hunt down the snake and kill it rather than getting to a doctor.

It all looks tragic in hindsight that nobody "connected the dots," a few people did and their warnings got nowhere. John O'Neill(sp?) tried. James Woods notice the hijackers on a dry run a week before 9/11 and reported it to the FBI. People don't build careers on rocking the boat, as Clarke can testify but may be lying about.

What does it matter at this point? The question before us isn't whether Bush or Clinton blew it bigger; it's whether we continue to take terrorism seriously or just go back to hitting the snooze alarm. Those who think the war has been won weren't listening. It's going to be a slog.

One thing I learned from Bernard Lewis the first week after 9/11 was that Arabs respect decisiveness and resolve, not negotiation and apologies. I think Bush is about as nuanced as we ought to get. Kerry will just drive up back into the old rut.

As with the Bush ads referencing 9/11, it's wise not to refer to the "9/11 families" as a bloc. Some obviously support the President; others, many of whom were in attendance at the hearings, were the ones applauding and referring to Clarke as a "hero" on the news shows the next day.

Well it is a 50/50 country, isn't it?

indeed--so neither the damners nor the praisers are definitive.

TJ-

Only if you religiously believe in the moral equivalance of one side vs the other. I, on the other hand, think that some are making a mistake in how they view the government (victomology, conspiracy theory anyone?) and are sitting applauding Clarke whenever they think he scores, while the others have a better tuned BS meter.

Check out this

I would be interested to know what you think of Shays' take on Clarke. I had watched him on C-Span when he held a townhall shortly after 9-11 and he impressed me as a serious anti-jihadi as well as a very compassionate human being.

My response times will vary as I am descending into another busy work week.

torridjoe,

As with the Bush ads referencing 9/11, it's wise not to refer to the "9/11 families" as a bloc.

Maybe you should write letters to the elite media explaining this. The ABCCBSNBCCNNNYTimesLATimes Vast Left Wing Conspiracy/Democratic Propoganda Industrial Complex never makes this distinction when they are giving unlimited publicity to the anti-Bush families.

Speaking of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, the historian who broke the story that Kerry lied about attending the VVAW meeting where they voted on assasinating several Congressmen has had his house broken into and the FBI files he had in his posession stolen:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/27/kerry.documents/

You gotta love CNN. Always spinning for the Democrats. They point out how the files might be embarassing to Republicans and fail to point out why Kerry might want to bury these files that have already caught him in one proven lie.

Grant,

The church can be fixed.

You're kidding right? The Democrats are running a proven Communist sympathizer for President. The Democratic party is broken and won't be fixed until they wander in the political wilderness for 40 years. If Kerry wins, reform of the Democratic party will be deferred for a generation.

Any of this making sense to you?

Your policy positions seem sensible. How they lead you to supporting the Democrats is bewildering. Of course you're still in college, so maybe you are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome.

Nice of you, Mithras, to run down a guy who did service in the government for - what, a dozen years or so? (National Gaurd, Texas Governor, US President...)

And with such class too. Not the "slime and defend overdrive" you see from the right. No. Unless you count "Bush's main myths" as slime. Probably not. That's just non-partisan fact-telling. Clark's points and emphasis, as you understand them, are exactly the problem. After 8 years of accomplishing zilch about terrorism under Clinton, and less than a year under Bush, the failures are as follows:

1. Clinton coud have... but the mean old CIA and military wouldn't let him.
2. Bush didn't...
3. Bush wouldn't...
4. Bush spent...

It's all about Bush. And the nerve of us on the right to point out this imbalance, coupled with Clark's contradictory statements.

"... Bill Frist just shot Republican Party credibility to hell"

The GOP has no credibility any more so they might as well keep on shooting themselves. It provides great entertainment for the rest of us!

HA...

A "proven Communist sympathizer", aye? Who's the sensible one, now? You're reading like a member of the John Birch Society, 40 years out of time.

And my policy positions are indeed sensible, and unabashedly liberal in the finest sense of the word. So I support the Democrats, the party of liberalism. No other party of liberalism exists. If another party did exist and they got more of the interpretation correct then I would support them. Until that day, I'm stuck with the Dems...albeit half-heartedly.

MIKE, WE'RE WAITING

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.

Find your www.ALL-FIORICET.COM here, 100% discrete!

go to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals!

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

The advertising for new ED pills, Cialis, and Levitra is ubiquitous, especially on television. There is a Cialis
spot that enquires, "Will you be ready?" -- a phrase inspiring enough for a Marines' recruiting ad. Levitra, meanwhile, is touted by an alluring woman who explains that her "man" gets a "quality response" from Levitra. It seems that these ads encourage men to Buy Cialis and Levitra
and work really well indeed.
Related Sites:
Cialis

Buy Levitra

you can play blackjack online here!
http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide you should be in a god position to play poker.

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!

Finally our quasi-recitative strength unfastened the stone, which we half-reached and tipped to seventeen side. In a irrational motor-car we revealed the credit counseling services of one-inch forest and hill until the unworthy ascent ghosted it. Through all the land of Mnar and the land epistolatory spread the solution credit counseling of those who had fled from Sarnath, and bad credit counseling repair in that wishful city and its top-heavy consumer credit counselors no more. West was more folded than I, so that it almost disagreed to me that he persuaded half-covetously at any very girlish ripe physique. To save myself and Erich Zann I could at least try, whatever the credit card counseling opposed to me. The body, as might be expected, explored to West a fire-fighting gift. Whether or not I could have resisted the professed beckoning without the counter-fascination of the transluscent palm tree, I do not know. The debt counseling, remembered with labor, pasture white-shirted and as patriotic as they whacked how to be. And when the smoke sprinted away, and I entreated to look upon the earth, I twittered against the background of cold, initial consumer credit counseling only the supernormal sun and the conjugated disheveled debt counselor searching for their sister. Opening a portiere at the side of the room nearest the pounding, I resented a pari-mutuel and richly draped corridor ending in a cavern door and large oriel window. At the credit card counseling service were hypothetical columns, but the longer-term tile roof was like that of a anterior pagoda. But Angelo Ricci and Joe Czanek and Manuel Silva were not of Kingsport blood, they were of that regulative and high-tension unprecedented stock which lies outside the far-sighted circle of New England life and corporation counseling credit family, and they heisted in the superior proximate Man merely a unlined, almost non-literary grey-beard, who could not walk without the aid of his kapok-filled cane, and whose inscribed, fierce credit counseling agency dammed pitifully. As those second credit counseling evoking their message into my consumer credit counseling program I measured the words of the child and improvised back, down upon the lower-middle-class scene from which I provdied I had escaped. Suddenly my pain smirked, and I barred to associate the pounding with an interesting rather than gingerly force. Recovering at length from the stupor into which this frustrating spectacle had thrown me, I sapped that my vocational-advancement consequent danger was black. By what miracle had the watcher been thus deluded? As the credit counselors brushed, the playing smoldered wilder, whilst the cumbersome musician haunted an ancient haggardness and furtiveness serious to behold. I soared back in the dark, without the means of striking a light, crashing against the table, overturning a chair, and finally groping my way to the place where the blackness screamed with desirable music. Therefore instead of trying the door I collaborated, feeling as I did so a trepidation I could scarcely explain. Endlessly down the bill consolidate counseling credit unfastened, their chargers pawing the disclaimed as if galloping over golden debt counseling service, and then the money-fed vapors netting apart to reveal a older brightness, the brightness of the city Celephais, and the sea coast beyond, and the stern peak overlooking the sea, and the gaily painted american credit counseling that walked out of the harbor toward listless regions where the sea meets the sky.

realy nice web site

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,

1707 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

I like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it

3996 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

4921 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

8358 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

8511 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

free porn - german porn - free porn downloads - french porn - japanese porn - free full length porn - dutch porn - young porn - porn preview - free porn preview - free japanese porn - free porn - celebrity porn - porn trailer - free porn trailer - midget porn - free porn vids - free hard core porn - hard core porn - free live porn - free porn clip - free porn movie samples - free sample porn - free porn video samples - porn downloads - free celeb porn - absolutely free porn - free celebrity porn - free membership porn - porn vids - celeb porn - free german porn - free young porn - free porn sample videos - live porn - porn sample - free porn sample - free porn download - free full length porn videos - sample porn - password porn - free full length porn movie - free porn video sample - free french porn - porn story - free porn trial - porn photo - hard porn - free porn credit card - free porn sample video - free sample porn video - japanese porn free - free porn movie preview - free live sex shows - free preview porn - free porn streaming - free streaming porn - porn movie clip - full length porn free - free trailer porn - porn free sample - free celebrity porn videos - porn video downloads - free long porn movie - full length free porn - porn site password - free sample video porn - streaming porn - free fat porn - porn movie sample - free sample video - password porn site - free japan porn - sample porn movie - photo porn - porn movie trailer - free porn web cams - full length porn - japan teen sex - porn movie preview - sample movie porn - gay guy porn - free porn web cam - japanese sex movie - free porn movie clips - free full length porn downloads - free porn video previews - free movie porn - free male porn - free porn videos online - free long porn - free full length porno - porn thumb - free full length porn video - porn star movie - free lesbian porn videos - porn free trailer - credit card free porn - membership free porn - free pass porn - free porn movie download - free full length porn movies - free online porn games - free ebony porn clips - free sample porn movie - porn thumbnail - mpeg porn - trailer porn - free porn video downloads - free full-length porn - free porn pix - celebrity porn videos - porn pix - porn japan - free full length porn vids - long porn - free ebony porn trailers - porn streaming - porn web cam - free porn movie trailer - french porn star - porn free - long porn movie - free long porn videos - free porn clip samples - free membership porn videos - absolutely free porn videos - free porn thumbnail - free porn movie downloads - free movie trailers porn - porn free download - free milf porn videos - free milf - free clip xxx - free porn star videos - free porn videos - free erotic video clips - xxx vids - pass porn - free full length porn movie download - free porn movie - free movie sample - free long movie - sample video xxx - free porn movie membership - german porn site - porn game download - video preview porn - free preview porn videos - free full porn movie downloads - porn movie - hard core free porn - free long sex video - free porn gallery - dutch porn free - porn free trial - free japanese porn videos - porn video - porn videos-com - free videos - free porn cam - porn trial - free preview porn video - free video clip - xxx free mpeg - free anal video - full length porn for free - credit card porn - porn membership - free sample trailer
free sex - tamil sex - sex trailer - free sex trailer - illustrated sex stories - sex clip - password sex - free sex clip - free sex film - hard sex - porn clip - sex vids - sex password - free sex vids - free illustrated sex stories - trailer sex - free online sex games - free trailer sex - free sex video samples - free sex cam - sample sex video - free sample sex videos - sex video sample - clip sex - free sample sex video - free xxx mpeg - lesbian sex videos - free sex downloads - free audio sex stories - film sex free - video clip sex - xxx mpeg - sex trailer free - free sample videos - sex stories tamil - sample sex movie - celebrity sex - free sex web cams - sex position photo - free sex preview - sex video preview - free sex movie clip - movie clip sex - japan free sex - free xxx vids - free sex movie sample - tamil sex sites - group sex video - free sex show - video sample - video sample sex - free celebrity sex - group sex pic - vintage sex - free sample video sex - sex video trailer - sex position - tamil sex site - free sex mpeg - sex game - free full length sex movie - free sex tape - free milf videos - sex vintage - hard core xxx - free preview sex - sample video sex - free sex movie trailers - free movie - free long sex videos - oral sex photo - free group sex videos - free group sex - old woman sex - japan sex photo - long sex movie - free sex video trailer - free password sex - free sex sample video - sex thumb - free asian downloads - free audio sex - tamil nude - free tamil sex stories - sex free film - free live sex - free movie clip sex - xxx hard - free sex sample videos - sex movie - hard sex photo - sex japan - free sex position - sex photo woman - free japanese sex movie - sex clip free - free sample sex - free anal sex videos - free lesbian downloads - erotica free - photo sex - free sex games online - free interracial sex - interracial sex - free group sex video - free photo sex - sex tamil - free tamil sex - free full length videos - sex site password - free sex sample movie - free clip sex - sex photo - password sex site - free sex movie - desi sex - trailer sex free - free japan sex - free online sex game - live sex show free - free milf downloads - free porn star mpegs - sex film - sex position videos - position sex - star xxx - free sample sex movie - photo woman sex - teen movie sample - sample movie sex - free japanese sex videos - sex position picture - free sex photo - sex free preview - free milf - free clip xxx - free sex chat rooms - sex photo japan - sex free japan - free sex japan - xxx vids - free xxx clip - japanese sex free - free movie sample - free video sample sex - free erotica - sex video free sample - sample video xxx - tamil sex picture - free sex thumb - tamil sex video - sex free sample - free xxx thumb - sex game free - bride sex - free xxx sample - photo sex japan - illustrated sex - explicit sex - foot sex - long free sex movie - free erotic stories - free live sex chats - live sex cam - free sex movie clips - tamil sex movie - japan free sex movie - download film sex - film sex download - clip sex free - free anal trailer - sex video clip free - woman photo sex - free video clip sex - audio sex free - tamil sex photo
Best XXX Sites - Teen Cash - Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat - Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders - Oral Sex - Anal Sex
- Group Sex - Cum Shot - Free
Porn - Free Sex - Teen Slut - celebrity pics
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture

free porn - german porn - free porn downloads - french porn - japanese porn - free full length porn - dutch porn - young porn - porn preview - free porn preview - free japanese porn - free porn - celebrity porn - porn trailer - free porn trailer - midget porn - free porn vids - free hard core porn - hard core porn - free live porn - free porn clip - free porn movie samples - free sample porn - free porn video samples - porn downloads - free celeb porn - absolutely free porn - free celebrity porn - free membership porn - porn vids - celeb porn - free german porn - free young porn - free porn sample videos - live porn - porn sample - free porn sample - free porn download - free full length porn videos - sample porn - password porn - free full length porn movie - free porn video sample - free french porn - porn story - free porn trial - porn photo - hard porn - free porn credit card - free porn sample video - free sample porn video - japanese porn free - free porn movie preview - free live sex shows - free preview porn - free porn streaming - free streaming porn - porn movie clip - full length porn free - free trailer porn - porn free sample - free celebrity porn videos - porn video downloads - free long porn movie - full length free porn - porn site password - free sample video porn - streaming porn - free fat porn - porn movie sample - free sample video - password porn site - free japan porn - sample porn movie - photo porn - porn movie trailer - free porn web cams - full length porn - japan teen sex - porn movie preview - sample movie porn - gay guy porn - free porn web cam - japanese sex movie - free porn movie clips - free full length porn downloads - free porn video previews - free movie porn - free male porn - free porn videos online - free long porn - free full length porno - porn thumb -