Quite true, so I would assume Frist is objecting to specific instances of actions against terrorism that Clarke said the Administration took which they did not. Either that, or that they did do things which Clarke is claiming that they did not, which would be easy to prove I would think.
Anyhow, the claim that someone working for any administration should testify as to the faults of the administration is so absurd as to be beyond belief. This isn’t exactly something the current administration invented. Get Clarke on perjury, and every adminstration official who testifies would have to take the Fifth, or has his resume out before traveling to the Capitol.
I certainly am not among the “most”, then, because that is exactly how I feel. There should be one law only, and it should restrict government. “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion” is Ockhamly sufficient.
We already have Clarke’s explanation. His 2002 story basically just left out all the “yes, buts…”
Yes, they authorized cover action spending to increase fivefold. But they never appropriated any of this spending to anything, making it moot.
Yes, they said wanted a larger plan. But they were in no rush to actually get it into action, and when it did get talked about in September, it wasn’t much more than increasing funding for the Northern Alliance.
Yes, they didn’t countermand standing orders from the Clinton administration. But they didn’t push people to follow them as a priority, which in Washington means that they get drowned out by all the other orders and chaos.
The only thing that Clarke really seems to have actually switched his tune on is the claim that the Bush camp had disdain for people who had worked under Clinton. And this is hardly a big deal, since we know it’s true and he was avoiding criticism of his President in 2002.
Well, when it comes to the law, you seem to agree with Jack Cade in Shakespeare’s Henry VI:
I’m not naive enough to say “If the law says it, it must be good”, and I’m certainly not going to deny that there are bad laws. Some laws are bad from the getgo, and others can be abused and loopholes found in them. Still others are archaic, and lack relevance to modern life. Yet others might seek to achieve policy goals you disagree with. However, the laws were all passed for a purpose, and generally, it was to, as the drafter saw it, improve society. Take the constitutional power named above, for example. It wasn’t drafted to increase governmental power, but to limit it, With the provision, a congressman in the minority party can say something unpopular or critical of the government, without having to risk arrest if the government doesn’t like what he had to say. This has the unfortunate side effect of letting Frist shoot off his mouth about Richard Clarke.
However, you don’t need the law to oppress people. Even without law or government, strong people will oppress weak people. A group of barbarians don’t need a law saying, “It’s legal to loot the villiage and rape the women there”. They just do it. What the law does, or what it should do, at least, is be strong enough that everyone else is “made weak”…So that everyone is equal in front of the law, and there’s one law for everyone, rich and poor, strong and weak. It should be designed so that everyone, if not equal in ability or materially, at least has equal protection, so that I can’t oppress you because of my resources, and so that you have recourse to stop me from abusing you.
The government, for all the bad it can do, can also do good. It took the government to electrify the Tennessee Valley. That wouldn’t have been done at anywhere the speed it got done without government aid and coordination. It took the government to build the transcontinetal railroad. That wasn’t going to get done without governmental aid at anywhere the speed it did. It took the government to make sure that the stuff in your hot dog won’t kill you. The food production companies showed no willingness to do it on their own. You need to be vigilant about the government. You need to make sure the laws being passed benefit everyone, and not just a rich few, and you need to make sure the government doesn’t take away our neccesary liberties. But in spite of that, you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I believe governments can do good, and that they can exist to serve everybody, and make the country and the world better. I know you think that’s a naive viewpoint, and obviously, I’m not going to convince you. Your set of values and beliefs in this regard are totally opposite to mine, and we’re both stuck in our set of beliefs.
My question would be: What should be done with Bush id it turns out that all of Clarks assertions are true? What if we see that Bush did intentionally mislead us and congress?
Is failing to be reelected enough or should we pursue criminal charges.
Until you get down to specific situations, in which case you have to to decide what is or isn’t “coercion,” and in which case you start approaching angels-on-the-head-of-pins levels of sophistry.
And, of course, there is the very real problem of who does the guaranteeing, and how they are prevented from arrogating enough power to do a little coercing of their own.