Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job'

Sat Mar 20, 6:52 PM ET

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq (news - web sites) with dangerous consequences.

He accuses Bush of doing "a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday that Bush and his Cabinet were preoccupied during the early months of his presidency with some of the same Cold War issues that had faced his father's administration.

"It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier," Clarke told CBS for an interview Sunday on its "60 Minutes" program.

CBS' corporate parent, Viacom Inc., owns Simon & Schuster, publisher for Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies."

Clarke acknowledges that, "there's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too." He said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) on Jan. 24, 2001, asking "urgently" for a Cabinet-level meeting "to deal with the impending al-Qaida attack." Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy cabinet secretaries, and the conversation turned to Iraq.

"I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me," Clarke said. "But frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.

The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.

Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Clarke said the president asked him directly to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.

"Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this,'" said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.

"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection,' and in a very intimidating way," Clarke said.

CBS said it asked Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy on the national security council, about the incident, and Hadley said: "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

CBS responded to Hadley that it found two people it did not identify who recounted the incident independently, and one of them witnessed the conversation.

[QUOTEclarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, writes in a new book going on sale Monday[/QUOTE]

And if i wrote a book I would call it
Vedder you suck and here is proof. then people would buy it cause they would want to see it.

sorry Bob I think I will soon be leaving your site as I have boats to build , charts to sell and fish to pursue'

granted I am a bit drunk tonight but no matter how numb become I can not tolerate the anti American bull **** that seeps onto the board.

My chart still stands as a raffle prize and I will ship to the winner.
hopefully the winner will be
someone who ties his own leaders and
repects the country that gives him the freedoms that we all enjoy.

read it all vedder before you post cause it is just more left wing hate speech

Bush Cheney 'o4

PS Read it all!

Can you even begin to imagine that your Mr. Bush may have made a mistake? Most of the world can.

make mistakes. If you read all the reports, it appears that both Clinton and Bush were

Do you think this man who was in a very high position in the white house was anti American? Is any one who disagrees with the sitting president anti American? Why can't some folks understand that it is as American as can be to question our leaders.

Blindly following without question, now that is NOT the American way.

Caught the interview tonight on "60 Minutes." Finally someone comes along and tells the truth about what is really going on. Clark is even more credible than O'Neil considering his resume.

The fact that Bush demoted the Anti-terrorism Cabinet postion to simply staff speaks for itself. Taking into consideration who makes up the remaining Cabinet shows the real agenda.

And in reference to the Bush/Clarke conversation, Lesli Stark busted out Hedley when he denied it happened. She told him they had witnesses that said it did. Of course Hedley went into this fabulous song and dance routine.

Papaslap - you should probably consider finding another country to live in. You obviously don't appreciate the freedoms we all are granted here. From the posts of your's I've read you strike me as a man filled with absolute hate towards any person exhibiting what a true American really is. Your ideology belongs back with the Third Reich.

I'm still listening to the debate on this one. One thing I picked up watching the 60 minutes piece was when he said that the Clinton admin went to "red alert status" or something like that and prevented the attack on LAX. Since we live so close to what happened it stuck out as incorrect and it was. The terrorist who was stopped on his way to LA to bomb the airport was stopped by a diligent border agent as he tried to enter Washington state from Canada. That was an individual being very diligent and very lucky.

GP - That's what they said in the interview. The administration heightened security on all the borders during that time. They credit catching the guy to the heightened security.

Papa

Best thing you ever posted

After failing miserably at his "terrorism expert" job, Clark is pushed out of the loop by the Bush admin. He then "retires", joins the Kerry camp, and writes a book.

Obviously, he can say anything he wants in the book about "private conversations" and lie about other things as well. The president (historically) is in no position to sue anyone.

BTW, his book is owned by Viacom who also own CBS and "60 minutes".

It has always been my opinion that the Clinton/Clark policy of tolerance towards terrorism and their non-engagement of terrorists like bin Ladin was perceived to be a policy of complaisance encouraging increasingly bolder aggression that finally culminated with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

They watched the destruction our embassy and shuffled their feet.
They watched the destruction of the USS Cole and shuffled their feet.

If Gore had won the election he would have watched the 9/11 attacks and shuffled his feet.

Thankfully Bush had the nads to take decisive action and with the continued backing by the major world powers we might just weaken the perpetrators of terrorism to a degree of impotence that more and more people like Omar Gadaffi realize the futility of such barbaric acts and embrace civilization.

And Thanks Papaslap…
For speaking out against those who patronize the media blather whereby national traitors are spun as unsung heroes. It takes a strong stomach to read some of the liberal press.

I love it when people call the press 'liberal'.

You know that is a myth the Ted Turner's and Rupert Murdoch's of the world love for the average american to believe.

What sickens me is the idea that we should have blind faith in our leaders because its a time of war. On the way to a thousand dead american men and women in a conflict sold to americans based on false pretenses...that's sickening.

Not sickening enough for you?

Fifty percent of americans think this is perfectly acceptable.......now THAT"S sickening. They refuse to read articles that 'are written by the liberal press', such as the one I posted titled 'Blind Into Baghdad' where even members of his own conservative constituency decry the extrememly poor planning of the Iraq war and the thin to non-existent reasoning used to justify said war...

"Iraq...Saddam"...Get it? If there is no link, find one or make one plausible.

Bush was waiting for Saddam to so much as pass gas so he could call it a biological attack and invade.

Next, Plunker will provide us with next week's Lotto numbers. :rolleyes:

Bush gets credit for Libya coming to its senses......a process that has been taking place for years?

So, 9/11 is Clinton's fault and Libya is to Bush Jr's credit?

Oh, well that makes perfect sense.

Man, where do you come up with this stuff? You're killin' me.

I guess if your only selected source of information is Drudge and The Weekly Standard you're bound to be ill-informed. :rolleyes:

h2o,

If you can't recognize that the vast majority of the media has a liberal bias, then it is you who are blind. (and if you are sickened, I suggest you throw-up).

GoHarley,

Why do you bother making a post that says nothing? (nevermind, I think I know).

Gawldamn Slab! Watchin' the 5:00 news must just be hell for you... Huh? Tryin' to eat dinner and decidin' what's liberal propaganda and what ain't all at the same time! :p

I'm willing to bet Slab tuned his telly to Fox then busted the remote.

Given that Richard Clark served under both Reagan and Bush Sr., I find it hard to blatantly label him as "uncredible." He may have a bit of chip on his shoulder for having a lesser roll in GWB's cabinet, I don't see how you can dismiss his book / testimony immediately.

Clarke transcript

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.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda..

So Clarke, which was it? The admin didn't or did want to go after AQ??

A little more reading enjoyment...

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — 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 — last point — 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.


Oh, and this whole transcript came from and interview in 8/2002


One more thing, I am not Blatantly labeling him as not credible but I also don't think that he should be the final word either as some of the left would like people to think..

For those who think Richard Clarke deserves credibility, read on...

Clarke Blocked bin Laden Extradition

Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz charged Monday that one-time White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke blocked efforts to gather intelligence on al Qaeda and torpedoed a deal to have Osama bin Laden extradited from Afghanistan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.

"I was personally asked to brief Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on exactly what had gone wrong in the previous efforts to get bin Laden out of the Sudan, to get the terrorism data out of the Sudan, which I negotiated the offer for," Ijaz told Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends."

He said he also personally negotiated a deal "to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2000, using at Abu Dhabi Royal Family as a proxy to get him out on an extradition offer."

But Ijaz told Fox:

"In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again."

The unofficial diplomat said that if Clarke hadn't put up roadblocks to obtaining Sudanese intelligence, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 might have been prevented.

He called Clarke's account denying offers of Sudanese cooperation "absolutely disingenuous; it comes very close to flat-out lying."

After months of denials from his former aides, ex-President Clinton finally admitted that he personally turned down the offer by Sudan to arrest bin Laden.

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," Clinton told a New York business group in February 2002.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

In his book, "Against All Enemies," Clarke called reports that Clinton had turned down the Sudanese offer "a fable."

See: *News Article*

Pmartin - Clarke's not the final word, he's just another word in a growing list of experts speaking out about what went wrong, and how we're heading in the wrong direction.

Plunker - nothing like a little biased propaganda, eh? Or is that from another liberal media source with no credibility?

This administration, and the GOP in general, has got to be the most ruthless people I've ever seen. Here's a guy that's got approximately 23 years of service to presidents as a counter-terrorism expert. 15 of those with Republican presidents. He's a life long Republican and voted Republican in 2000. But when the guy comes out as a subject matter expert and tells the public what's really going on, you guys attack him like rabid dogs.

Looks like he'll join the ranks of Blix, O'neil, Foster, and Wilson.

You know, discouraging freedom of speech through intimidation, character annihilation, and public persecution is pretty damn un-American. Goering and Caesar would be pretty darn proud of ol' Bush & Co.

By the way, here's some information straight from the horse's mouth: Clarke Interview

GH, I agree that he is not the final word and more than likely there is some credence into what he is saying. I also don't think that this is all one administrations fault either, like some want to say. Unfortunately for all of us BOTH parties have a lot of corruption and a lot of people they own $$ favors $$ to. Maybe one more than the other? But, for myself, I think that I align my beliefs (more like hopes) with one side more than the other hoping that we will get someone, one day, that will actually stand up for those beliefs. I too have beliefs that fall on the other side but I looked at my options, which really suck, and I have to stay on the right a little. Probably has to do with my military background and a little more conservative belief than the left. I am probably more moderate that anything else.

As far as this whole Clarke thing it's really BS and a waste of time. I mean a waste of time because what's it really going to prove? What is really going to happen? If Clarke was that sorry and knew that much about OBL and that an attack was imminent he should have went public with it. That may have stopped the attacks?? We'll never know. Also, if he knew that the attack was imminent how much responsibility does he bear? I can tell you if I knew someone was going to hold up the local AM/PM and didn't say anything I'd be typing this note from behind bars and looking over my shoulder making sure Bubba wasn't behind me. When all is said and done with it nothing will have changed. It's really something that will hold us over till Kerry gets back from Vacation. :rolleyes:

If you think about it, are the American people really given a choice when the two we have to vote for is Bush or Kerry? I don't. To me it's like having to choose which little toe do you want to have cut off. Neither little toe is worth much and I really don't understand their purpose but we have them and you have to make a choice. It's probably going to hurt some no matter which one you choose and you just hope that you don't find out after it's gone that you picked the wrong one. Stupid analogy but for some reason when Kerry/Bush pop into my head the I first think big toe but the big toe is actually useful and I know what it's there for...

Anyway, and unfortunately for most of us, the American middle class is the one that always bears the load for the country. We will always pay the taxes for the rich and the poor. We will be the ones that are expected to give up the most. We will always be the ones that get screwed over the most. We will also be the one who's lives will be most affected by those changes.

I have argued about my side and my points. But, I have also listen to you and others on this board and have learned a thing or two. Do the arguments get a little heated sometimes? We'll yes. But, it's all in the sake of what we all want and that's a better America and a better place for our children to grow up. I guess it just seems that sometimes we lose sight of what we are really even debating about. I see people that actually hate each other just because of the party they align themselves with. Now that is STUPID!!! I think and I hope that the reason people get so heated and passionate is that they want the best for all of us?? Now that might be pipe dreamin there?

Well, I got WAY of subject and started rambling. So to you and other's that I have debated with and may have offended in some way it's not personal.


Oh BTW to that guy is California, God Bless America you JO!!

P Martin,

very well expressed

Has anyone ever told you that you greatly resemble Zane Grey?
He and Ernest are my heroes.

Pmartin - wonderful post. Very eloquently put with thoughtful and insightful points.

I do get torqued out of shape with some here from time to time, but I don't really take any of it personal, nor do I mean to make it personal with others. It's not like anyone here is going to affect my life in any way. Unless they felt compelled to share some zipper-lipped information with me - that would make my life very happy.

Face it guys the same guys side with the same side of every issue every time. Lawyers should prove that you can make a convincing case for either side....One thing we should be able to agree on is that there are a bunch of people out there who have vowed to kill any and all Americans wherever they are whether man, woman or child. They don't need to discuss one side or the other they just want to kill you and will probably succeed if you sit back and hope they change their mind because you are being nice to them,. if they kill your family you can choose to go to court and litigate against them but I would definitely choose to stop them before they killed my family even if that meant killing them and their family...and their dog and their cat

Clarke is saying whatever he thinks the people that are most important at the time want to hear.He has changed his tune on this stuff considerably.
Think it has anything to do with the book hes trying to sell.
The guys smart.Hes playin everybody.

You're right, he is smart. That's why he held his position for so long, was trusted by 4 different presidents, and is a known expert in his field.

He's also refuted and defended every accusation by Bush & Co. of his lacking credibility. Matter of fact, a memo from the White House dated April 2001 states that Bush felt too much attention was paid to bin Laden.

The timing of his book being released is really a White House ploy. Every book written by an ex-administration employee must be reviewed by the White House for matters of national security. Clarke submitted the book last year for review. The White House didn't release it until only recently. The White House timed it to look like a political ploy, not Clarke.

Here is an interesting quote from Clarke's book "Against All Enemies." Drawing a contrast with George W. Bush's aggressive approach to the war on terror, Dick Clarke says:

"Others (Clinton, the first Bush, Carter, Ford) might have tried to understand the phenomenon of terrorism, what led 15 Saudis and four others to commit suicide to kill Americans. Others might have tried to build a world consensus to address the root causes, while using the moment to force what had been lethargic or doubting governments to arrest known terrorists and close front organizations. One can imagine Clinton trying one more time to force an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, going to Saudi Arabia and addressing the Muslim people in a moving appeal for religious tolerance . . ."

Perhaps GW could have sat down with Bill, Hillary and Osama bin Laden and sung endless choruses of Give Peace a Chance. :rolleyes:

...or he could have just said, "To hell with what the world thinks!" and invade some country for personal and political gain, risking and sacrificing the lives of thousands of Americans, allys, and Iraqis, putting the US into historic debt beyond belief, forcing the US into a situation that becomes a quagmire....

Oh, he already tried all that. My bad.

Ya know, Clinton's no longer in office - eventually you all have to come to grips with that. Continually using the Clinton-scapegoat defense is getting really tired and, to be honest, quite embarrassing.

goharley,

Since Clinton and Iraq are both now included within this thread you might give some consideration to the following:


The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was unfinished business from the Clinton administration. Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.

Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,


"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he
threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the
security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is
with the new Iraqi government, a govern- ment ready to live in peace with
its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

"... Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the
price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we
will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at
his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he
will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will
use them."

Those words were spoken by President Clinton. Unfortunately, all he did was
present the case. He left it for his successor to do the heavy lifting.

Strange that I've heard no criticism of Clinton administration's misuse of intelligence.

--- --- ---

This thread began as another attempt at bashing Bush.

Perhaps we would all do better searching for facts than promulgating negative opinions.

I know of those accounts, and agree with the assessment. However, what do you propose that Clinton should have done? Invade Iraq? Obviously you forget the GOPs response to merely launching missles at Iraq in retaliation for the assisination attempt on Bush, Sr. The GOP wanted his head. Said he was merely trying to divert attention away from the Lewinski scandal.

Of course you guys can never admit that he effectively shut down Saddam's ability to produce any weapons by firing those missles, as David Kay (the Bush appointee) so testified.

Then there's the flak from the GOP he caught for sending troops to Bosnia. And the GOPs claim that he was over reacting to the bin Laden and Al Quida threat. Couple that with the "Blackhawk Down" fiasco, and do you really believe the US public, and Republican controlled congress, would have supported an invasion?

Now you guys are trying to pin the whole mess on the previous administration. "Oh, poor W only had 8 months in office, but Clinton had 8 years." Okay, it's now been 3+ years and what has Bush really accomplished? Everything in your world may look pretty good, but eventually you gotta take off those rose-colored glasses and see the mess Bush has really created.

Perhaps the fact that Clinton saw no need to mislead the public into support for invasion was the proper use of the intelligence he had. Which begs the question: Why did all the presidents before W have access to the same iintelligence information, yet they came up with a completely different assessment - Republican and Democrat alike?

The GOP is really starting to become of bunch of whiners and finger pointers. You guys are acting like a bunch of two-year olds; "... it's not my fault 'cuz Billy did that first."

Sheesh :rolleyes:

I would still like to know how we wound up at war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11...

Horrible president. Worst foreign policy president since LBJ, and domestically it just goes straight in the toilet. Where all the flag waving patriots when someones job get shipped overseas? Erosion of first amendment rights under 'the patriot act', quite possibly the worst piece of toilet paper ever flushed through congress.

How about his record on the environment? If it came down to it, do you think he'd support commercial interests or the average sport fisherman? If you answered 'sport fisherman' you are deluding yourself.

The capper...Bush's professed 'Christianity' and the ramming of its morality down americas throat. I'm sorry but I have a hard time thinking Jesus would have implored the disciples to make a case for war against the Phillistines because the Romans had him put to death.

I think Jesus was probably against war, call me crazy.

So...when the subject of war arises, Bush's bible stays tucked safely away in his nightstand. To me, this is the most unforgivable kind of hypocrisy....

I see you continue with your paranoia based slander and negativity.

If "you guys" reads this I would be interested in 'his/her/their' response to your defamation and attempt to characterize 'his/her/their' beliefs and actions.


H2O - You and Kerry seem to have found Jesus at about the same time.

I'm not a born-again Christian but I might be able to help you affirm your new-found beliefs.



May you both find peace, harmony and happiness in your lives.

No way Plunk, I am pretty up front about my disdain for Christianity...especially the ultra-conservative, fire and brimstone, death to homos, christianize the savages variety.

This is not the same thing as disdain for God. Of course most Christians see it that way, but what do you expect fron an exclusive religion?

I am just saying that if Bush is going to continue cramming conservative christian morality down our throats he might start by setting a christ-like example.

Allowing one thousand of your countrymen to die solely to avenge 'an attempted assasination' doesn't seem very christ-like to me. On the contrary it sounds alot more like the proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing the Bible tells us will walk among us.

But it is OK to stuff liberal ideals down our throats? I must be confused as I thought we lived in a constitutional republic. Show me where the constitution allows the federal govt. to be involved in issues like education,Health and human services,Steroids in Pro baseball etc. etrc. . Talk about jamming ideals and values down our throats liberals beat conservative christians a million to one. Or are you invoking the liberal birthrite excuse of "it was here before I got here so it's not my fault" ?

Better yet, Elvis, show me a president that hasn't been concerned with education of our children, and health and human services of our nation. Now the steroids in pro sports I'll give ya. That is a pretty stupid issue to be concerned with in view of what's going on in the world. But considering who mentioned it in their State of the Union address I'm not surprised.

GH,

Better yet show me a president since Honest Abe that truely followed the requirements of the constitution. It's OK to care just not propose and legislate activities not specified under the very cosntitution that one swore to uphold and protect. You have to go back before Honest Abe to find a president that uopheld his oath. Abe being the supreme liberal.

Does the constitution strictly and expressly forbid the federal government from taking an interest in domestic issues such as education and health services? Isn't it possible for a president to uphold the constitution while taking measures to build a stronger more united nation through education and human services?

I would have to conclude that since no president has been ran out of office for over-providing to the constituents, it is quite possible. However, it could be argued that there are presidents that did not win a consecutive term because they failed to adequately provide for the nation.

GH,

Yes it does. Those are the rights of the states not the feds . The issue is not about the value of an education it is about which is obvoius. It is about the fed government imposing it values on a community. Use sex ed for example. If your community decided it did not want sex ed in its schools the feds would with hold funding from your schools. They have no business being involved constitutionally. It should be up to the community made up of city,county and then state elctorate processes. This would ensure the schools reflected the wishes of the community it serves.

GH,

Yes it does. Those are the rights of the states not the feds . The issue is not about the value of an education it is about which is obvoius. It is about the fed government imposing it values on a community. Use sex ed for example. If your community decided it did not want sex ed in its schools the feds would with hold funding from your schools. They have no business being involved constitutionally. It should be up to the community made up of city,county and then state elctorate processes. This would ensure the schools reflected the wishes of the community it serves. This is how the constitution was designed and the republic formed. Yes we have gotton a long way from this in both parties. Yet the republicans are closer to the truth than the Democrats. Nothing like a strict constitutionalist however. Lawyers and soccer moms hate us:-)

I understand and agree with all of that. However, it does not stop a president from encouraging states, or the federal government, from enacting laws to benefit such programs. Congress just can't enact laws that control the states' issues.

Goharley

You should run for President. Seriously you would get my vote

You are the voice of common sense and reason.

From Billybeer to Harleybeer in only thirty years.

I'd have the Bush twins as my interns.

Donkey........Elephant............why not a laughing pig?

Good one Slab

Does that mean a lot more pork...

Irony

Well, for those who didn't think that Clarke was out there just to sell books last week here is an interesting article from the Washington Times . It seems that maybe Clarkes writings would have been a better fit in the Enquirer.

I really love what I heard in an interview with him last week saying he voted for Gore. I think this guys main problem was that he didn't like to work for/with a woman of equal stature and his ego was hurt. So, he comes out burning bridges and trying to hurt the B-Admin anyway he could. His career is over and his last shot at any $$$ is the latest tell all book. Maybe with all of this there will be some new info come out but I really doubt it. When it comes to the hill they are all cut from the same cloth anyway.