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:-)