Replies

It was Newt Gingrich that approached Clinton about the need for a Commission to study and make recommendations regarding national security and terrorism. Clinton formed the Hart-Rudman Commission and gave Newt a seat.

The Commission's report was called the Road Map to the 21st Century and consisted of 3 reports. The first report contained what most members could agree on. The second report contained what many members could agree on. The third contained what some could agree on.

As for the accusations that Bush ignored Hart-Rudman, it is true. But, so did everyone else in Washington, with the exception of Sec of Defense Cohen, who spoke often about the Commission's report. Had any politician suggested re-organizing the govt, he would have been crucified as trying to pull a fast one to benefit his party. Thornberry of Texas was the first to introduce legislation, and before 9-11. Lieberman introduced legislation in the Senate subsequent to 9-11.

Shortly after Bush took office, Hart and Rudman approached the Whitehouse and Bush put Cheney in charge with the promise to get back. Hart and Rudman complained that after 9-11 they coundn't get an appointment with the Whitehouse.

The dems will use this against Bush but Bush really isn't to blame. He had to wait until the push for re-orginization got traction in Congress before he moved on it, or "got out in front of it".

It is interesting to note that the Bush Doctrine of Preemption is found in the Phase 2 Commission report. I think Newt did that.

Everyone should read at least the Executive Summaries of the reports.

I pointed out the dems will try--indeed I found this article while researching this latest ploy to wave around the Hart-Rudman report--but they will fail.

Did you read the article? Whatever the report, the facts are the Bush administration was taking the threat of terrorism plenty seriously and they were taking pro-active steps to address it, no matter if some committee or person thinks since they didn't get sufficient attention then the matter was being ignored. It was not.

Just an FYI on Clarke:

1. Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said that in June 2000 Clark told the subcommittee there was "no need for an assessment" of the terrorist threat.

Three national commissions concluded the US needed a comprehensive threat assessment and a national strategy. Shays held 20 hearings pre 9/11 and on June 28, 2000 he asked Mr. Clarke, then serving as Clinton's Special Assistant and National Coordinator, Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism, when an all source threat assessment and strategy would be completed.

Clark answered "No assessment has been done, and there is no need for an assessment. I know the threat."

2. In 2000, the Department of Defense Worldwide Conference on Terrorism asked Mr. Clarke's assistant when a national strategy on terrorism would be completed. The assistant responded that a strategy was being developed (in 2000 - the last year of the Clinton presidency). However, no national strategy to combat terrorism was every produced during the Clinton administration.

3. 911 Commissioner Lehman noted to Clarke on Tuesday that his 15 hours of private testimony differed substantially from his public testimony. So substantially that Lehman told Clarke he couldn't believe it. As a result of that, the White House is seeking to declassify whether Clarke lied under oath.

4. On page 127 of Clarke's new book "Against All Enemies", Clarke notes that it's possible that al Qaida operatives in the Phillipes "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building." Intelligence places Nichols there on the same days as Ramzi Yousef, and "we do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippines stay and were deadly when he returned."

And yet, the Clinton administration focused exclusively on homegrown terrorists, and never talked publicly about this matter. Laurie Mylroie, formerly of the Clinton administration, and others, have since talked about the Iraqi connection to the OKC bombing frequently. Yet your news organization has been largely if not completely silent.

5. Despite Clarke's assertion that he is non-partisan, a few moments research into public records indicates that Clarke has only donated to Democrat's campaigns, never to Republicans.