I'm tired of the Public terrorism hearings

[Albinonewt]

I really can't take much more of Dick Clark and Madeline Albright sitting there and lying about about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism. I'm just getting a little fed up with this "over the course of 8 years we did everything we could to stop the grave threat from Bin Laden and Bush didn't do anything" nonsense. Truth is, Bush in his first 8 months started implementing a program to thwart terrorism and his first comprehensive strategy was finished on September 4th. Clinton in 8 years didn't really do anything, because he primarily viewed terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not a military one.

I'm just tired of watching purgery TV. Can we get some new actors please?

[Mateo]

Agreed, but I do like hearing how Clark is exposing all the bueacracy and all the crap that has to be done just to get an operation going. We had Bin Laden in our sights, oops check didn't clear, hes left the building again. Not to mention once you get passed all the politics theres still a bunch of government red tape to go through. If anything is to blame, its the inefficiency in our government, oh and Clinton doing jack squat except launching a few million dollar missles doing absolutely nothing. Id rather spend a few billion and get it right then a few million that does nothing. Actually thinking about it, we coulda took Iraq with a few divisions with one arm tied behind their back while whistling Dixie and made this war cost alot less. Actually were spending way too much period. I wonder how much these hearing are costing? A million an hour? LOL

[logamus]

Re: I'm tired of the Public terrorism hearings

Originally posted by Albinonewt
I'm just tired of watching purgery TV.

then im guessing we can expect the indictments any day now? if your so tired of hearing clarke et al why not ask condi to step up to the plate? she has all the time in the world for sunday morning shows but when she needs to raise her right hand in public well thats another story. the GOP is soooooo concerned with the private sessions with clarke, why arent they concerned with the private sessions with rice too? if you want to show what bush is all about put rice up there to say it, or realease her private sessions with congress. im sick of bush calling clarke a liar when he doesnt offer anything public to refute him.

i dont think clinton and clarke did much if anything in their 8 years, and i honestly wouldnt be bent out of shape if bush didnt have a real solid plan set up in his first 8 months. i admit that i never really took the threat of terrorists attacking us at him very seriously. even after the first attack on the wtc i just thought it an isolated attack and people like tim mcveigh were more of a threat. i realize now the error of my way, and i have learned from that.

your sick of "purgery tv", well im sick of endless name calling, finger pointing, and telling everyone that there was a plan in place but just not telling us that under oath.

[-Carnifex-]

I totally agree, though I'm still waiting for the WMDs.

[Albinonewt]

Re: Re: I'm tired of the Public terrorism hearings

[QUOTE]Originally posted by logamus
then im guessing we can expect the indictments any day now? if your so tired of hearing clarke et al why not ask condi to step up to the plate?

She has, privately. And she's right to not appear publicly. Having these hearings public was a bad idea in the first place. The war on terror is ongoing, and here we are broadcasting on television our weakenesses in that war and our capabilities. Just the other day they spent an hour discussing what goes into arming a predator drone and how long the response time is. That kind of stuff shouldn't be in a public hearing. Whatever the sitting national security advisor has to say about a current war should remain in a private room. Its the only way she can speak candidly.

she has all the time in the world for sunday morning shows but when she needs to raise her right hand in public well thats another story.

That's a lie though. She has given testimony under oath. The commission has even stated on numereous occassions that she has been up front and level with them in all questioning. They just want it public, and they're wrong.

the GOP is soooooo concerned with the private sessions with clarke, why arent they concerned with the private sessions with rice too?

Clark's testimony is purgery. His story is a complete fabrication. ANd it's easy to prove, just check it against what he used to call fact last year. He's a liar, and all you need to do to prove it is compare it to his prior testimonies under oath.

if you want to show what bush is all about put rice up there to say it, or realease her private sessions with congress. im sick of bush calling clarke a liar when he doesnt offer anything public to refute him.

What are you talking about nothing in public. They have put forth mountains of evidence against the nonsense that he is spouting, most of it from his own mouth.

i dont think clinton and clarke did much if anything in their 8 years, and i honestly wouldnt be bent out of shape if bush didnt have a real solid plan set up in his first 8 months. i admit that i never really took the threat of terrorists attacking us at him very seriously. even after the first attack on the wtc i just thought it an isolated attack and people like tim mcveigh were more of a threat. i realize now the error of my way, and i have learned from that.

Its really too bad the people that were supposed to be protecting us were just as shut off to the hidden reality. I don't really blame Bush for not taking out Al Queda in his first 8 months. Let's not forget that 2 of those 8 months were spent dealing with the E-3 spy plane incident and the fact that the two most militarly capable nations on earth were not vibing real well for a while. But the Clinton people are now claiming that terrorism was their number one priority and so was getting Bin Laden. If that's the case then how come Time Magazine managed to pin him down for a face to face interview in 1997 but our government couldn't locate him?

your sick of "purgery tv", well im sick of endless name calling, finger pointing, and telling everyone that there was a plan in place but just not telling us that under oath.

That's also a lie. It has been put in under oath that Bush's final evaluation and plan had been presented to him by his national security team on September 4th. Now, the Clinton Administration claims that they had a plan and delivered it to Bush, and that's a bold faced lie. They even said it themselves last year, but now that they're on TV in an election year they're singing a different tune.

[logamus]

i can see why the commission should be behind closed doors, but there is also a need for the american people to know what mistakes are made to ensure those same mistakes are not made again. i also dont have a problem with dr. rice not speaking publicly at the commission, just dont go on 60 minutes either. that really chapps me. if bush doesnt want any of his people to testify in the public hearings thats fine by me, but they should also be barred from the talk shows as well. no public disscussion means exactly that.

clarke just looks like a weasel to me, and i wouldnt doubt it if he has lied, it just seems like bush is out to destroy that man while dodging the real questions. i dont fault bush for 9/11, and i think that terrorism was a higher priority with him than it was with me. and like you said, he had a very full plate in those first months of office. i guess my main fault with this is that the bush team is going out of their way to talk publicly on tv shows but not publicly to the commission. that deeply annoys me.

[1stdeadeye]

Re: I'm tired of the Public terrorism hearings

Originally posted by Albinonewt
I really can't take much more of Dick Clark

I'm just tired of watching purgery TV. Can we get some new actors please?

Yeah, he should stick to American Bandstand!!

[logamus]

and new years rockin eve!!

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by logamus
i can see why the commission should be behind closed doors, but there is also a need for the american people to know what mistakes are made to ensure those same mistakes are not made again.

I disagree. I don't need to know what failed in the intelligance community. It doesn't do the public any good. We have no input in the matter, and even if it did what would the public have to say about intelligence gathering and anti-terrorism that's more meaningful then "you should gather intelligence and stop terror". I typically believe that we have a right to be informed of events that affect us, but not at the expense of performing the job. In other words, I don't think we need to know what failed. We just need to know that its being worked on. To explain the failure is to expose our weaknesses to our enemy, and that's not something i can live with.

i also dont have a problem with dr. rice not speaking publicly at the commission, just dont go on 60 minutes either. that really chapps me. if bush doesnt want any of his people to testify in the public hearings thats fine by me, but they should also be barred from the talk shows as well. no public disscussion means exactly that.

No, it doesn't mean just that in this case. The problem here isn't that they refuse to testify and they just go on talkshows to make noise. They're on the news and talk shows to refute the lies being told by others. If EVERYONE would agree not to take it public then there would be no reason to go on the air with rebuttles. Unfortunately some people are trying to sell books and make money off of people's fears, and those specifics need to be refuted. If Madeline ALbright didn't go on TV saying "we did everything we could and its Bush that failed you" then Rice wouldn't have to call her a liar.

clarke just looks like a weasel to me, and i wouldnt doubt it if he has lied, it just seems like bush is out to destroy that man while dodging the real questions.

How do you figure he's dodging the questions? He's refuted with evidence every charge Clark has made. And no the Republicans are tired of this nonsense and are going to prove his prugery and his lies. I'd rather they not waste time on it, but he's done the country a great disservice.

i dont fault bush for 9/11, and i think that terrorism was a higher priority with him than it was with me. and like you said, he had a very full plate in those first months of office. i guess my main fault with this is that the bush team is going out of their way to talk publicly on tv shows but not publicly to the commission. that deeply annoys me.

What's the difference? If you really think about it, the commisison is going to know what the administration says no matter if its public or private. Either way the commission is involved and listening the testimony. If people have a problem with the public not hearing the information that they should be happy that the administration is providing some of the information on TV. Actually, its a pretty good way of dealing with it. That way capabilities aren't exposed, but some of the answers can be. Rice can say to Barabara Walters "That Classified and I'm not going to talk about it". To the commmission she can't. That's how you inform the public withouth exposing ourselves to the enemy.

[logamus]

well newt we will just agree to disagree then. if there is a problem in security i want it fixed. going public with the fact that we had a problem with situation x and now thats been resolved does not put the public at risk. saying what was done to solve that problem would put us at risk, but i dont think that has been done. saying in public who was at fault for situation x does not put us in any more danger, but perhaps leaving that person in that position does.

i dont think the light of public hearings needs to be brought out for every mishap the government has, but when it is as serious a gaff as 9/11 was i think hearings do need to happen. politicians on both sides like having screw ups swept under the rug. 9/11 deserves answers, the people need to know what screw ups were made, who made them, and assurances that they will never happen again. i think a new head of the CIA would be a good start, but thats just me.

i also go back to my first post, if clarke lied lets get some indictments handed out. hes either lying or he is telling the truth. if hes lying haul his butt in court, if not then the bush team needs to pipe down.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by logamus

but when it is as serious a gaff as 9/11 was i think hearings do need to happen.

Gaff? That smacks of blaming the US and or the current administration for 9-11 and not the people that are ultimately responsible, the terrorists.

Was there some failings of communication between the various intelligence agencies? Looks that way, I am not however ready to go pointing the finger of blame at anyone other than those bastards who planned and carried out the attacks for 9-11.

It pisses me off to no end that we have people in this country, and I'm not saying it's you, that one one hand scream "we should have done something" and on the other scream "we shouldn't have premeptive attacks". It's ludicris for anyone to be spouting that nonsense and it's high time they were called on it.

i also go back to my first post, if clarke lied lets get some indictments handed out. hes either lying or he is telling the truth. if hes lying haul his butt in court, if not then the bush team needs to pipe down.

He either lied then, or he's lying now. Either way it's under oath, so let's declassify what he said in 92. If he lied then or now, he ought to be hung up by his short hairs.

Personally I think he's lying now. He has tremendous political motivation to do so at this point in time, and none or very little in 92.

[logamus]

if he is lying then by all means he needs to find his way to a courthouse. the problem is that we (the public) dont know that for sure as his older hearings are private. thats is why there is the rush to declassify his previous hearings. doesnt it kinda look like a double standard is being used though? if condi rice is not allowed to testify publicly because of exectutive privliage, shouldnt dick clarkes be kept secret for the same reason? i realize there is a different executive in charge these days, but the same rules should apply shouldnt they? if clarkes testimony was given under the protection of executive privlage then it should be honored today.

while i know the terrorists are the ultimate responsible party, it is foolish to overlook major blunders by the fbi and cia. to just give them a free pass and say it was a once in a lifetime thing is not smart. when you have field agents telling their bosses about potential terrorists and they more or less ignore it, things need to be done.


i am all for preemptive strikes, i was for invading iraq a year ago and i still feel that it was the correct move, regardless of the lack of wmds today. im not real sure the government had a well thought out plan for post-war iraq but then again they may have had a great plan that just didnt work out the way they had hoped. i think the iraq war has already paid off in the removal of saddam, lybia coming clean and iran opening up to weapons inspectors. none of those would have been accomplished without the war. i also think its not blind luck that we havent been attacked again. it is a result of the changes made post 9/11 in law enforcement and the military action taken across the globe.

the only issue i have with bush and 9/11 is not allowing condi to testify at the public hearings but allowing her to come on 60 minutes, meet the depressed, this week, etc. i just see that as a double standard and while there may be a reason for that, it still irks me.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by logamus
the only issue i have with bush and 9/11 is not allowing condi to testify at the public hearings but allowing her to come on 60 minutes, meet the depressed, this week, etc. i just see that as a double standard and while there may be a reason for that, it still irks me.

I've heard this argued all over the media this week and I still think it's nonsense.

There's a separation of powers in place in the government for a reason.

The fact that Condi won't go and sit in front of this witch hunt has zero to do with going on a news show, if you can call 60 minutes news, to refute some nonsense that Clark is pushing.

I would think that people would be happy that Condi is going on a national show, in fact the same one that Clark was on to give the other side of the story.

I would have thought that people would have been anxious to see both sides and to make up their minds according to what they had seen.

I guess the fact that 60 Minutes is also associated with the PUBLISHER of Clarks' book, and had CONVENIENTLY forgotten to mention that tidbit won't shade peoples responses one bit eh?

Condi already gave her testimony. The fact that it was behind closed doors, and peoples reactions to that is very telling.

[logamus]

her not going to the commission to testify publicy irks me. regardless of the reasons or excuses its a double standard. i dont think its going to change, but in the beginning bush was against a 9/11 hearing and he caved under pressure, he didnt want hearings to be public but he caved under pressure, he doesnt want condi to testify and so far he hasnt caved but who knows what tomorrow will bring.