Tell me what facts Mr. Clarke has presented. Unfortunately I’m not in the mood in paying this disgruntled ex-employee money by purchasing his book. So unless he has some clear cut facts in his book that go beyond the very simple opinions he is expressing on the news, I don’t think we need to worry about the “validity of his facts.” Because I’ve yet to see any.
I now suspect you of memebrship in the Bush Admin. 
Seriously, though, this attitude is repugnant and abhorrent beyond all things to a free nation. It betrays all that our Founding Fathers and subsequent heroes in uniform have fought and died for. It is the definition of un American.
I’m overcome with genuine sadness and heartfelt grief when I consider that you may mean what you’ve posted.
I do suspect the Bush Admin of similar elitist sentiments.
I see no reason not to be highly cynical in regards to the American public. Only half of them even bother to exercise the most important of their rights that over one million have fought and died for.
It’s not about whether or not Bush had foreknowledge of 9-11. The claims are that the focus was on Iraq instead of Al Qaeda. The US intelligence community said that Hussein was not likely to iniate an attack on the US in the “foreseeable future.” Yet despite this the Bush Admin’s alleged to’ve prioritized Iraq above Al Qaeda which had already repeatedly proven itself likely to attack American targets and was expected to attack American targets again.
That’s the contention. Not that Bush had foreknowledge of 9-11.
Clarke has said that Bush focused “too much on Iraq immediately after 9-11.” He says nothing about Bush focusing on Iraq prior to 9/11 and ignoring other threats. I certainly however hope that Bush had been looking towards Iraq prior to 9/11, just as I hope he had been looking towards al-Qaeda.
Which of the facts that he’s asserted are independently verifiable?
In fact, I don’t think any of his facts are independently verifiable. Thus, when the Bush says he’s lying, then how are we to verify the accuracy of his assertions except to look at corraborative evidence and motives?
I supported the war in Iraq. I don’t think it was a misallocation of resources (although I certainly think it’s debatable). Sorry to have been unclear.
Again, I haven’t been clear. As I understand it, Clarke’s opinion was that Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat. Clarke’s opinion was that the US should give more attention to al Queda.
Unless we’re required to accept his opinion of the war against Iraq as fact, then I don’t see why his allegations matter. It’s just one more opinion that disagrees with Bush & Co. (of which there are millions). Bush and Rummy and Powell and Rice and I are not required to accept his opinion as more valid, and we’re not required to act on his opinion when it contradicts our own.
It is not in the Constitution, but it is a long-established practice that Executive Branch officials who are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate make themselves available to Congress. In any case, Congressional committees have the power to subpoena witnesses, should the need arise.
From the Annotated Constitution:
“The Court has long since accorded its agreement with Congress that the investigatory power is so essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative power in Congress. We are of the opinion,'' wrote Justice Van Devanter, for a unanimous Court, that the power of inquiry–with process to enforce it–is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function…”
Quoting Justice Warren: “The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.”
Quoting Justice Harlan:" The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution." This all starts on page 90. I await your reasoning of how investigations of the administration of the Executive Branch does not constitute “oversight.”
It is the best way I know of to have an independent-minded people tell the public what went wrong. Honestly, if there is a better way to discover facts, make recommendations for policy changes, and inform the people of the process in a manner that builds the confidence of the public in that same process, I’m dying to hear of it.
Fair 'nuff. I owe you a beer, a donut, a subscription to SDMB, or something similar.
Would you care to share your interpretation of this particular phrase in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution?
“[The president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”
I hate posting three times in a row, but I missed your later comments on oversight and the role of the legislature in foreign policy. I wasn’t trying to be snotty, dwell on this point, put too fine a point on it, or rub your nose in a point you have conceded; I just meant to respond to the particular earlier post that I quoted.
So, perhaps the question we should be asking is “Why doesn’t the commission subpoena Dr. Rice”? If they think her under oath testimony is necessary to complete their objective, they should do so.
Condi was interviewed on NBC news tonight and asked why she wasn’t testifying in the public hearings, she cited the need to preserve the constitutional seperation of the legislative and executive branches. It sounded awfully weak, especially since Powell and Runsfeld had testified.
But clearly this is a GWB issue. If he wants her to testify, she will, and if doesn’t want her to, she won’t.
The President can refuse to execute a law, simple as that. You can bring him to court and issue a writ of mandamus in attempts to force his hand, but he could ignore the court’s ruling as well. The Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper, all that matters in politics is willpower and public support.
None of what you have posted contradicts my original assertion that you have absolutely no right to any information Simon.
The Congress can hold inquiries, true, anyone that has ever watched C-Span knows this. However, Congress does not have to make them public and they do not have to divulge the information of said inquiries to the public.
Furthermore as I originally said it is not Congress’ place to “grade” a Presidency like a grade school teacher sets down marks for students. Furthermore, this isn’t the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence nor its House Counterpart. Basically the Commission’s power to haul in executive officers has not been constitutionally tested.
Furthermore Congress has always had a pretty clear right to question Cabinet members because Cabinet posts are creations of Congress. Condi Rice is not a Cabinet member, she is an advisor, she is in the position of a personal aide to the President.
I read a Washington Post article just now that basically dismissed Clarke as having any credibility to me at all. He made the claim that “The prime concern of the Clinton administration had always been terrorism.” That is obvious bullshit, Clinton was a waffler on terrorism, and I doubt any man that was fighting for his position as president had any primary concern besides that one.
I would be curious to know if Martin C. Jekyll has an opinion on this.
I don’t get it :D.
Also now that I’ve paid $4.95 I find these smilies inadequate!
I feel as though I paid $4.95 for my current administration(in DC), but I’d never post that here. Nope. Never.
::cough:: Freedom of Information Act ::cough::
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm
"Enacted in 1966, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was the first law to establish an effective legal right of access to government information, underscoring the crucial need in a democracy for open access to government information by citizens. In the last 30 years, citizens, scholars, and reporters have used FOIA to obtain vital and valuable government information. "
You guys are again confusing what is a right with what is a law. The law says I have the right to live, and that for someone to kill me is a crime. But that right only exists if I can defend it.
Source: Article II, Section 1., of the US Constitution.
If what you say is true, the President is in violation of his constitutional oath and should be impeached.
Reply: Oh well.
Am I the only person getting very scared at how Martin Hyde and Age Quod agisseem to be eager to give the Executive Branch a free ticket to total unaccountability and secrecy?
I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that American citizens should simply accept whatever information the government wishes to give us, and not hold our politicians accountable with public hearings or inquiries or what-have-you. As SimonX so bluntly put it, “We’re in charge of them.”