And again, he has an axe to grind. I’m not going to be painting a flattering pitcture of my boss if he ever fires me.
Last time I checked you don’t have a right to “know” anything.
So you’re against a serious inquiry into the evenst that led to the tragedies of 9-11, huh?
Hmmm.
I like to bring up a point that I believe luci has brought up elsewhere.
All of this about Clarke’s possible and probable motives is absolutely irrelevant when compared to the issue of whether or not what he says is true.
If the allegations are true, then it is Clarke’s motives, benign or malignant, don’t mount to a hill of beans.
It doesn’t seem signifigant to you that the Bush Admin might’ve kept dealing with a country that wasn’t much of threat at all in the “forseeable future” a topmost priority while the nation faces grave and imminent threats from somehwere else?
No concern for that?
Very interesting specimen you seem to be.
I hope to fuck that I’m being whooshed here.
Are you really denying that the electorate has the right to oversee its government?
Good great fuck, man! Are you serious in this contention?
That’s the point I was trying to make. The mere fact that these folks are not currently in office doesn’t mean that they won’t use this Committtee to further their own political agendas.
You think nobody has been asking what happened? Where have you been the last year and a half? These questions have been asked over and over (and over) again.
If you’re just now hearing them, I suggest that it’s because you’ve just now crawled out from under some sort of rock.
Who taught your civics course, and which lobe of his brain was he missing?
The Legislative branch does not have oversight of the Executive branch’s executive functions. That’s what the separation of powers means. You’re thinking of checks and balances, which is something different.
In this country, the Legislative branch can bitch and moan, but it doesn’t get to dictate foreign policy to the President, and it doesn’t get to dictate the manner in which the intelligence agencies are run, and it doesn’t get “oversight” of those functions. (Congress can dictate funding and declarations of war, but otherwise, it’s left – rightly – to the Pres.)
9/11 was a bigger deal to me than you could probably fathom. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that we should sweep it under the rug. And I don’t begrudge anyone that wants more information. But if you think that Committee hearings are the only way for people to get answers about 9/11, then I don’t think you’re looking hard enough. And if you think that the Committee is going to come up with some conclusion that hasn’t already thought of (and probably implemented), or if you think that one person or one party is “to blame” for the 9/11 attacks, then I think you’re wrong.
Every Administration since at least the 70s is to blame. The media is to blame for not paying enough attention to it. The American public is to blame for not paying attention to it, and for not demanding that the government pay attention to the issue.
My problem is that the hearings give the appearance of motion, when in fact nothing is being done. The idea is that if we get a bipartisan committee talking about the issue, that it will look like we’re doing something.
Baloney. The Patriot Act, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting aQ in countries like Pakistan and the Phillipines, freezing of terrorists’ assets, arresting and interrogating terrorist suspects, reorganizing the intelligence community, re-prioritizing the fight against terror in our foreign policy – those are steps in the war against terror (even if they’re not always steps in the right direction). Politicians rehashing what’s already been discussed in thousands of articles is fine, but it’s not actual motion. It’s just the appearance of motion.
You’d lose that bet.
Until Congress let’s Bush conduct hearings investigating why Congress saw fit to go along with CIA fund-cutting during the Clinton Administration I think Congress can go to hell.
Congress has no right to review the executive ability of Bush like a grade school teacher giving a student his marks for the semester. Nor does Bush have that power over the legislature. The only people Bush is responsible to in terms of his performance as chief executor are the American people. And they are going to decide in a few months how they feel about the matter.
If I thought we lived in a country that could actually be civil, a country where a man can get up and say, “No, we were not 100% prepared for 9/11. We had security in place but unfortunately we just had not anticipated that type of threat” and not instantly be branded an idiot, a failure, and a fraud then I’d want Bush to say that. But since the ignorant masses of fools that make up this country’s electorate hear something like that, it will be spun so out of whack by the media that they will unfairly hold Bush accountable for every security lapse since 1990.
There’s a reason the executive branch is the largest people, his job is by far the biggest. He doesn’t know everything or even most of the things that go on inside his Departments, and no President ever has. Even GW had too much going on to know all that was going on.
The only people Bush has to go on when it comes to “Whether we are secure enough or not” are his intelligence aides. Do you think Bush would honestly listen to one of his advisor’s say, “We simply are not prepared. There is a huge attack that is almost definitely imminent and we do not have the proper equipment or organization to stop it.” and reply, “Oh, I don’t care, let’s move on to the next issue.” No, more than likely whoever gives Bush his intelligence briefings told him things were as best as they could be prior to 9/11. It may even be Condi Rice that as telling Bush security was doing as well as possible, maybe that is why she doesn’t want to testify.
All I know is that no administration will weaken national security deliberately, not even such a wretched train wreck as the Clinton Administration. If there is one thing I can trust every president we’ve had so far is that they wouldn’t just say “sod off” to a pressing national security concern.
Are you saying that what Clarke says isn’t true?
Are you accusing Clarke of lying?
Or are we just gossipping here?
You personally do not have a right to any information whatsoever. Only if Congress of the USSC tell a President to release something to you have a right to it. They haven’t done it here. You are never entitled to full disclosure.
Strictly speaking the Congress and the USSC can easily say you don’t deserve to know shit and be perfectly correct.
You oversee government by voting, and that’s that.
I trust him about as much as I trust anyone who leaks info about their former employers. Especially when the info pertains to a great national tragedy, and especially when the info is going to result in a huge book deal.
I trust his info about as much as I trust a Palestinian extremists documentary on how the Jews are mindlessly massacring poor Palestinians.
If this guy felt the administration was so badly fucking up prior to 9/11 why did he not say anything then? Oh, maybe because then he might lose his job? Which is probably all he cared about anyways.
Actually, you’re sadly mistaken. That’s why there’s Senate Select Committee on intelligence and the House’s corresponding counterpart.
SSCI’s jurisdiction
Congress can pass whatever laws it wants. What it cannot do is make the President execute them.
Furthermore, just because Congress passes a law does not mean the President is bound by it. That resolution has no more realistic affect on the U.S. Constitution and the powers given to each branch than an executive order declaring the U.S. Congress null and void does.
Also the last time I checked this wasn’t the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that was conducting this inane political witch hunt.
You expect the electorate to consent to be governed without the necessary knowledge to give informed consent?
Don’t forget that **the electorate is the sovereign entity in the US.**We’re in charge of them.
Do you really think no “serious inquiry” has been made until now? Do you really think that nobody is capable of making a serious inquiry without the endorsement of Congress? Please tell me I’m being whooshed.
In fact, I think that this topic has been addressed seriously many, many times. And I think that the “serious inquiry” is probably motivated less by a desire to discover deficiencies in the process than to play political games.
Again, I have no beef with Clarke. But I would imagine that an analysis of his motives is important to the determination of whether what he says is true.
It would be a concern, if I haven’t heard hundreds (if not thousands) of times about how Iraq wasn’t a grave and imminent threat.
I’m aware that many people feel that way. I’m aware that people in the Administration feel that way (See O’Neill, Paul). I guess I’m just surprised that this is the first you’re hearing of it.
Or are you suggesting that we must accept Clarke’s opinion as gospel? Because I’m not ready to do that.
Who really cares what the electorate thinks? The electorate is stupid and will be controlled by whatever inane platitudes are shoved down their throat. If you tell them the sky is green with enough gusto they’ll believe it.
Information is meaningless to people too stupid to understand it or too stupid to interpret it without the aid of political hacks who distort it for their own purposes.
Actually, he said plenty “back then”. You just didn’t notice.
**
So, are you saying that he’s lying?**
Are you really saying that the president is above the law?
I doubt very seriously that he is lying outright. Because the last time I looked he isn’t presenting much in the realm of facts.
I’ve read a lot of statements like, “The administration considered terrorism an important, but not urgent, threat.” I need some classifications for exactly what important means in that context and what urgent means. How does he know exactly how Bush felt about it? Is he aware that he was part of the administration at that time?
Unless he has some proof that Bush heard evidence that Al-Qaeda was going to attack the United States and then Bush did absolutely nothing about it I don’t think Bush has really made any colossal mistake. Unless I hear that he knew 9/11 was coming and just sat on his hands I do not think he has made any colossal mistake.
It seems like to me Mr. Clarke is very good at making his opinion known, but when connecting that to reality I just don’t “get it.”
As crazy as it sounds there is a lot more to being President than dealing with possible terrorist attacks. There is a lot more to being President than dealing with National Security. There is a reason that the Executive Branch comprises fifteen departments and employs 1.5m civilian operators. Only 2-3 Departments really deal directly with National Defense. And believe it or not all of the departments represent and important aspect of governing the country.
Maybe Clarke is just pissed that terrorism was not the only thing Bush was thinking about. Well, I’m sorry Mr. Clarke but we do vote President’s into office with more than just a military ruler in mind.
Touche.
I tried to imply that the Legislature has some involvement in foreign policy when I talked about the Legislature’s control over the purse strings and declarations of war (and I should have included the appointment of ambassadors), but which you left out of your quote. I don’t think “oversight” is the right word because it implies there’s more control than I think exists, but I’ll concede that there is some “oversight” and save my nitpicking for another forum.
But my point remains – the President is in charge of foreign policy. The Legislature’s limited prerogatives in those forums do not give it any right or ability to change that foriegn policy.
Where does an examination of the facts fit in your hierarchy of relevance to veracity?
Facts are not dependent upon motives. It’s baseless sophistry to assert otherwise.
If the facts are sound, then his motives don’t matter one little bit.
Since we both agree that Iraq wasn’t an imminet threat, aren’t you concerned that the Bush Admin may’ve spent too much energy and too many resources dealing with this optional burden, (Iraq), while we are confronted by grave and imminent threats from Al Qaeda? Doesn’t strike you as misplace priorities at all?
“Clarke’s opinion” doesn’t seem to matter much at all. What’s important is the veracity of what he’s relayed. That rests on facts, not opinion.