[Moomah]

Thank God for Condi Rice.

[ken5050]

Remember, Slick was busy launching "cruise missiles" into Monica..

[ravingnutter]

We pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision. But the Predator was designed to conduct surveillance, not carry weapons. Arming it presented many technical challenges and required extensive testing. Military and intelligence officials agreed that the armed Predator was simply not ready for deployment before the fall of 2001. In any case, the Predator was not a silver bullet that could have destroyed al Qaeda or stopped Sept. 11.

I am glad she included this info...that was the basis of their accusation, which I debunked last week here and here. Go Condi!

[January24th]

Fox News had Mansoor _____(last name?) on this morning, and asked him about it. He had done a lot of the footwork in the negotiations to get Bin Laden back in '97. The guy was livid and basically called Clark a liar. He was extremely agitated that Clark was selling out national security, lying about the Clinton AND Bush administrations, AND publishing a book...all to feather his own nest. He openly challenged him to serious cross-examination of the facts. He wants a face-to-face with the man that single-handedly and repeatedly thwarted efforts to bring in Bin Laden.

Clark wouldn't have opened this can of worms unless he's got some big assurances that the media will give him a "bye" on this.

What ever happened to media curiosity?

[goodnesswins]

"President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day -- meetings that I attended.

NOTE that!

[jveritas]

There should be no mercy for this liar Richard Clarke. The White House must crush him and crush the entire liberal Democrats who are behind him in this most outrageous lie.

[middie]

If this expose' came from someone with a political background or a future political agenda it would worthy of a dismissive attitude. Coming from the Chief of Counter terrorism traversing G. Bush The Elder, Clinton and G.W. Bush it is not so easy to treat it cavalierly. It brings to mind a recollection of Dean's testimony before the Watergate Committee when he said that he told Pres. Nixon that the break-in and cover-up "...[W]ere becoming a cancer on the Presidency." That comment illustrated the reality that the Pres. knew of the act and was engaged in a conspiracy to hide it. Further inquiry showed that to be true. Yet, at the time, it was denounced with remarks similar to those at large today on talk radio.

It's time to take a step back and listen rather than jump in with conclusory accusations of Clarke's nefarious intent. What would be his motive? Other than to report things as he witnessed them--and thus not be a part of the contrary spin of which he speaks, that is a mandatory question.

[ZULU]

Ricahrd Clarke is a lying viper in the employ of the Democratic Propaganda Machine.

The ultimate solution to America's problems is to rstructure the two party system so it excludes an effective Democratic Paty - PERIOD.

They are all lying, treasonous, socialists.

[ServesURight]

Nevertheless, Bush has got to be smarting from holding over Xlinton officials. These people have no loyalty to America. They have allegiance to the RAT party and the evil socialism it espouses.

[redhawk]

Condi makes a pretty good case here. But why won't she testify before the 9/11 commission? I have a real problem with high level officials that refuse to testify, sounds too much like the old Klinton admin. The Bush White House is better than this, she should testify and get this out in public. Editorials aren't enough.

[January24th]

Breaking on Drudge Report:

CBSNEWS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT!

Ah! Media curiosity DOES live, just not at CBS. Or NBC. Or ABC.

My first thought about Clarke this morning: follow the money. There you have it.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[First_Salute]

There is a lot of evasion by the author of this article.

Whether or not you do or do not have intel on precisely where you may be attacked, one of the most basic practices in self defense, is to be prepared such that you have a broad defense and defense in depth, such that you have the capability for fending off the unexpected.

You are to be prepared for the unexpected, as impossible as that responsiblity of yours may seem.

The article completely avoids the failures by the Bush Administration, on this point.

The types of attack that took place, have been under consideration by "military analysts" not to mention many others associated with aviation development, for several of the past decades.

That such attacks would take place in the United States and against both civilian and government targets, have been expected for many, many years --- AND WE PRACTICED ROUTINELY, WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO IN TACTICAL RESPONSE.

The Bush Administration was responsible for bringing itself rapidly up to date on this, not to mention all the other duties as Commander in Chief, but it did not, and the President did not, get with the program until it was too late, and it still has not, in some critical areas.

Not to mention that more coffee was spilled in the Kremlin than in Washinton, D.C., on September 11th.

Unfortunately for us, the Bush Administration, in addition to several State and local government leaders AND ESPECIALLY BUREAUCRATS, remain unprepared.

Preparedness --- that is a primary duty of a military leader, of a civil defense leader.

Remember Pearl Harbor.

We became specialists in preparedness, though recent White House administrators have sought to dismiss what we learned, as not being a part of their new deal, the "new paradigm."

There is no "new paradigm."

That was one of the big lessons on September 11th.

In closing, I'd like to point out that there is no "the homeland" either --- there is, in fact and in our hearts, our country.

The authority to defend our country, is within the Constitution under the War Department powers. Such operations and agencies needed, fall under that authority, and such organization that is need, does to, within the Department of Defense.

No "Dept. of Homeland Security" is needed; and it certainly is not Constitutional.

The powers and efficiency of organization, that President Bush and others have sought, is properly made within the authority of the War Department, in which can exist, the Department of Defense and an adjacent, better-named, Domestic Defense Network.

Well, the Bush Administration had wanted to place various federal law enforcement agencies within the domestic defense network scheme, and that would not be possible if the network operated under the War Department authority.

So, they defied the Constitution and set up the Department of Homeland Security, for which the judiciary must make law as is their want, off the top of their heads, in order that it have some authority from a "living Constitution."

What a mess.

Not much effort put into considering how this new institution would function under the control of the socialists when the Democrat Party gets its hands on it.

So, you see, there is much to consider; and it once was, back during and after World War II.

Yet "modern thinking" has it that those old, large, "glorious" wars are a thing of the past; and with all large main battle tanks, all else in the historical documents is being tossed out.

Kind of like the way our worthy American Heritage and foundations that are in the construction of our Constitution, is being tossed out, for the "new paradigm."

What John Kerry calls the "New Deal."

No thanks.

[Enduring Freedom]

Some said Clarke's just looking to sell more copies of his book and/or possibly hoping for a job with Kerry or a future Democratic president.

"He probably thinks that the Democrats have a chance this time and so he's trying to suck around for another job," Alexander Haig (search), former secretary of state under President Reagan, told Fox News on Monday.

"This is an outrage to claim President Bush is responsible for nine years of total incompetence in confronting international terrorism that he [Clarke] was a part of," especially when "the Clinton administration did nothing but warn, warn, warn and throw a few rockets" at terrorists.

Bush, however, "has a firm grasp on the global threat that is confronting the United States, the free world and nations that believe in the rule of law," Haig continued

[kellynla]

Condi Rice makes a good case for the Bush Administration but the airlines and airports to this day have failed to provide adequate deterrence for future bombings.

It was only after 9/11 that Air Marshals were placed again on planes, that reinforced cockpit doors were installed. And to this day there are no inspections of cargo, checked in luggage, checking of airline and/or airport employees. Any employee cleaning up a plane after a flight could leave a bomb on board. And a bomb could be placed inside cargo or checked luggage.
If all of these problems had been corrected beforehand there would not have been a 9/11. Period!
I think I will continue to refrain from flying commercial airlines, thank you.

[WOSG]

A thought occurs in reading Condi Rice's excellent explanation of Bush's active stance at removing Al Qaeda *before* 9/11:

The timing of 9/11 was somewhat lucky, in that while there are complaints that we should have stopped it (silly - how do you stop bank robbers or killers or terrorists with hidden plans?), what is Bush *had* moved against bin Laden seriously before 9/11?

Clearly, if Bush had launched a major strike at Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, the idiots would have *blamed Bush* for inciting Bin Laden to attack us! Never mind that the plot was hatched in 1999 anyway, they would have used that as an excuse.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont.