Blogcritics: Comments on Be Careful What You Wish For...

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:08:35 EDT

Be careful that you don't speak too soon. excerpt from MSNBC article that offers lots of juicy tidbits showing Clarke just might have the last laugh: ....But the broad outline of Clarke's criticism has been corroborated by a number of other former officials, congressional and commission investigators, and by Bush's admission in the 2003 Bob Woodward book "Bush at War" that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden before the attacks occurred. In addition, a review of dozens of declassified citations from Clarke's 2002 testimony provides no evidence of contradiction, and White House officials familiar with the testimony agree that any differences are matters of emphasis, not fact. Indeed, the declassified 838-page report of the 2002 congressional inquiry includes many passages that appear to bolster the arguments Clarke has made.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 17:13:48 EST

The trains in Spain go mainly up in flames: http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/04/04/d40404130288.htm

Comment by CW Fisher

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:24:13 EST

I never saw so many people so worked up over a turtle race. This dialogue is all about something that hasn't even happened yet. Think of how much there'll be to say when she actually testifies. Apparently the article and thread is about who's more impressive, Clarke or Rice? and how is President Bush going to reclaim his credibility? You know what? Fuck Bush's credibility. (Ah! Thanks, RJ!) There are more important things to worry about. Let the commission do their job and I'll watch C-Span online with transcripts later. There's no reason to play puppet show press room. Hasn't George Bush wasted enough of our time? How much more "evidence" do we need that Bush never cared about what happened on 9/11? That's the issue. Did Bush give a shit? Answer: NO! My investigation's over. Y'all can talk about this all day if you want, but it's 70 degrees outside and I'm no foo. David Flanagan, you have a talent for drawing in lots of people. It's a gift.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:20:48 EST

Dave, for more on my thoughts on racism, see my comment in Al Barger's recent post Thanks in advance, Shark

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:16:06 EST

Spain is being targeted because they are democratic, Western, Christians. Osama and friends don't really care about the details. Sorry RJ, I have never read more misinformation from an individual until I came across your posts. "We declare our responsibility for what happened in Madrid exactly 2 years after the attacks on New York and Washington," the man on the video said, according to a government translation of the short message, recorded in Arabic. "It is a response to your collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies." source

Comment by Shark

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:15:14 EST

Dave: "Your definition of Dr. Rice is inherently racist. Not that I'm surpised that such a remark would come from you Shark, but using skin color to define someone's character is not something I find acceptable.." Oh boy, here we go. I didn't 'use skin color' to define anyone's character; I used skin color to identify her. She's black, right? It's like saying Little Richard was a skinny black version of Elvis. Or better yet, Elvis is a fat white version of Little Richard. Please explain why I'm 'racist' or apologize like a man. (Otherwise, you're in the same category as another resident of BC, and I'm sure there are worse fates, but I can't think of any at the moment.) Anyway, Dave, you'll have to find a better reason that this one to dislike me. (There are plenty of legitimate ones!) Best, Shark

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 09:28:55 EST

"The other problem is, once we hand power over to the Iraqis and the UN begins to take a greater peacekeeping role" Have you heard something? My understanding is that the change in sovereignty is going to have no effect on the number or composition of troops. On July 1 it's still going to be the unilateral occupation that it was a year ago, and I have yet to see any signs of that changing.

Comment by David Flanagan

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 02:07:34 EST

Hopefully, Bush can deal the deadly blows to terrorism that he is dealing to our allies. We and our allies are doing business as usual. Yes, there is a divide over Iraq, but that has been way overhyped by the media, which loves to ignore all the other things we are doing with the French, Germans, etc. We have differences with those nations, and that is it. As for the Iraqis hating us, the ones who hate us over there are the loyalists, everyone else is fine with us being there. If you look at the recent polling data from Iraq, you'll find that even in Baghdad the people don't want us to leave yet. They know what we have done for them and though they are eager, impatient even, for self rule, they also want to make sure that loyalists are properly crushed. What we have in Iraq is a struggle for the future of the war on terror. The Islamofascists who are entering the country cannot allow the creation of a democratic nation. To do so, in the Middle East no less, would signal to every citizen of that region that their ideology is weaker than democratic ideology. The other problem is, once we hand power over to the Iraqis and the UN begins to take a greater peacekeeping role, Saddam loyalists and terrorists will have a major new problem on their hands in that they will no longer be able to claim that they are resisting the "occupation." Once Iraqis are in charge, then their struggle becomes far more difficult, and likely hopeless. Which is why the Bush Administration's accelerated timeframe for handing over power makes perfect sense. In the end, the Iraqi's impatience for self rule is a problem I'd far rather see than a madman eager to find a way to hurt us. Opposition in this country to Saddam's ouster had little to do with the right and wrong of the actions we took, it was mostly about the fact that leftists in this country hate Bush with a burning passion. Nuff said. David

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 01:59:02 EST

Spain has faced even more recent terror attacks, despite electing a pacifist, Socialist, appeasing Mr. Bean Look-a-like. Spain is being targeted because they are democratic, Western, Christians. Osama and friends don't really care about the details.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 01:24:10 EST

Catching Osama won't stop terrorism, I agree. Hopefully it would at least give them a devastating demoralizing blow though. As far as the allies in Iraq, have you not heard that they joined us because they were told there were WMD there? Well there weren't, and Blair has lost most of his power over in England, and Spain got bombed for it, thereby causing their voters to overthrow their government. Hopefully, Bush can deal the deadly blows to terrorism that he is dealing to our allies.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 01:13:37 EST

The US has dozens of allies in Iraq. The next time I hear/read the word "unilateral" I am going to vomit... Bush is obviously interested in catching Osama. It would do him good politically. Those who think he doesn't care about catching Osama, and merely wants to steal Iraqi oil, are not rational people. There are thousands of troops (and others) doing their best to catch Osama. The Pakistani border is tough terrain. It won't be easy. Anyway, catching Osama will not eliminate the terrorist threat. It will give a nice boost in the polls for Bush, but will do little with regards to preventing lunatic Muslims from killing innocent Americans.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 01:02:57 EST

RJ, I think a President Kerry would fight the war on terror with our allies, not alienate them. And while you feel good about Bush fighting terror with such ferocity, perhaps you should drop him a line and remind him that Iraq had no WMD, actually nothing but people in poverty who hate us more than ever, and who brutally murder us in the streets while Osama is somewhere over in Afghanistan reclining on a camel blanket somewhere sipping tea. Ferocity doesn't mean much if it isn't directed in the right place.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sat, 3 Apr 2004 00:11:56 EST

Clarke may just be an honest, decent American who wanted to prevent terror, and wants to tell the truth. I don't know. Or maybe he just wants to defeat Bush because he was demoted, and wants to rake in mega-bucks from book sales. I don't know. I think both the Bush and Clinton administrations underestimated the terrorist threat. The difference is, the first attack on the US by the terrorists during Bush's term in office met with a dramatic response. The numerous attacks on Americans during the Clinton administration led to...practically nothing. I don't know how a President Kerry would fight the war on terror. But I suspect it would be with less ferocity than Bush. That's one of the major reasons why I am supporting Bush in 2004.

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:45:12 EST

Look at it this way: could turn out that Bush did everything right and Clinton did everything wrong. I can't see how the commission will tell us anything more than what we were not doing in the past. Right now we have the FBI, CIA, military, and every local and state police force in the country rapidly connecting databases so that we don't ever make the same intelligence mistakes we made in the past. Look, I'm just joe average citizen here and even I know that what went wrong is that the nation just was not ready for the kind of war we woke up to on 9/11. Even Richard Clarke said clearly that asking for the things he was asking for to help prevent an attack made him look a bit crazy in the eyes of at least two administrations. I do believe at this point that Clarke was trying to do the right thing, I just don't think anyone but Clarke was prepared for what it was going to take. And even Clarke has said that, by the time Bush took office, it was too late to prevent 9/11. Thanks. David

Comment by bhw

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:39:29 EST

Victory first. You can't win if you don't know how to fight them. We knew how to fight Japan -- aside from the sneak attack, it was conventional warfare. We fought a conventional war in Iraq. But Al Qaeda is still all over the place, including some inside this country, almost for certain. We need to know what went wrong with the intelligence so we can figure out how to not let them slip through the cracks. Look at it this way: could turn out that Bush did everything right and Clinton did everything wrong. As a democrat, I still want to know as soon as possible. No more dead American civilians.

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:33:38 EST

Well, the Japanese did that with a military strike, not terrorist cells. Actually, Al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1993 or 1996, I'm not sure, whereas Japan did not declare war on us until after the attack. And Al Qaeda did strike a military target, the Pentagon, as well as civilian targets, right? Lastly, we did not know how long the war was going to last when we declared war on Japan in 1941, just as we don't know now, yet we knew enough then to keep our priorities straight. Victory first. How many governmental resources are being diverted as we speak so that the 9/11 panel can call witnesses, query numberless public officials, and ignore the pressing issues of securing the homeland just so we can find out if 9/11 could have been prevented (which is the stated goal of the commission)? In my opinion, the 9/11 Commission is turning into a bigger distraction from the war on terror than Iraq could ever be. Though, in my opinion, Iraq is one of the major fronts in our war on terror. Thanks. David

Comment by bhw

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 16:24:29 EST

Investigations into how the Japanese were able to surprise us at Pearl Harbor did not begin until after WWII was concluded. Well, the Japanese did that with a military strike, not terrorist cells. The reason we need to investigate 9/11 now is that we're still in danger of more terrorist attacks. That and the fact that the war on terror will probably last a loooong, looooong time. If you wait to figure out what happened in 2001, you'll have a lot more dead Americans.

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:54:18 EST

It's not a huge break. We have had presidents testify under oath. But they do it in closed session, not in public. Yes, there is a societal good that comes from open hearings, but why now, when we are in the middle of the war on terror? Investigations into how the Japanese were able to surprise us at Pearl Harbor did not begin until after WWII was concluded. This is just politics and, as I say above, Democrats are going to regret forcing this issue once Dr. Rice completes her testimony. Go Condi! (Look, I'm waving my pom poms Mark!! - LOL) David

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:49:38 EST

But have faith, Dave - your skinny, black version of Martha Stewart can always get a make-over before April 8. Your definition of Dr. Rice is inherently racist. Not that I'm surpised that such a remark would come from you Shark, but using skin color to define someone's character is not something I find acceptable, no matter how low I'm used to seeing individuals on this board go. And please remember the fact that, despite all of Martha Stewart's problems and even if she goes to jail, she's likely achieved a level of success above and beyond what you could ever dare to hope. Thanks David

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:39:22 EST

I don't think he's been a great President. In fact, if the Dems had nominated Edwards or Lieberman, I would actually have some thinking to do on Election Day. RJ, I agree and I know that Bush Campaign advisers were concerned about Dean and what they call the "Clinton Factor." I'm wondering if Kerry could gain some advantage with Dean as his running mate. Speculation on this issue is rampant, of course. David

Comment by Dirtgrain

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:50:42 EST

Debbie said: "How many times has this ever happened in the past, that a National Security Advisor testifies publically under oath before a panel? This is not the norm, so the Admin is taking it seriously and is willing to go to extremes to supply the panel with information. This executive privilage stuff is not made up by one side or the other.... once you have set precedence it can be used in court to compel future National Security Advisors to testify in political witch hunts, not good for the nation." Debbie said: "[Y]ou don't realize what a HUGE break from previous practice this is in allowing a National Security Advisor to testify publically under oath before the commission is." It's not a huge break. We have had presidents testify under oath. Is a national security advisor supposed to know things that are too dangerous for a president to know?

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:06:08 EST

c'mon shark. dave's gotta keep cheering. he'd look pretty silly standin' there with the pom pom's otherwise.

Comment by Shark

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:23:48 EST

Delusional Dave: "Oh ye of little faith..." David & Co. have "faith" in Condi's inherent honesty. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." ---M. Twain The above examples from "Prudence" PROVE Condi either lied, stretched the facts, or was wrong - any of which is enough to have her fired. But have faith, Dave - your skinny, black version of Martha Stewart can always get a make-over before April 8. (They can make her over into an honest person.)

Comment by Jurist Prudence

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 03:29:56 EST

Rice and BushCo have a huge credibility problem: CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02 FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04] FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04 CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"] CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04 CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04 CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04 CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]

Comment by RJ Elliott

Fri, 2 Apr 2004 01:20:53 EST

Quite true. I am almost always very cautious about politics. I think the GOP will easily hold the House and Senate in 2004 (probably will gains seat in both), but the White House is up for grabs, IMO. Bush is not as strong as some would like to believe. His support is a mile wide and a half-inch thick. I don't think he's been a great President. In fact, if the Dems had nominated Edwards or Lieberman, I would actually have some thinking to do on Election Day. But since they chose Kerry instead, I am going all-out in my support for Bush in 2004. But I still worry...