Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Bilmore, what was it like to recite ithe Pledge without "under God" when you were in school?

Dunno. We were still pledging to King George.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A dubious term to use, given that his complaint is that their bureaucracy stifled the program he had going in the Clinton Administration.

So what? I'm sure that there were more than a few conservative types who served during Clinton's presidency -- especially among the career civil service. I'd guess that not too many of your sterotypical "liberals" go into counter-terrorism as a career.

S_A_M

P.S. Hank, watch out for that . . . tree!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So what? I'm sure that there were more than a few conservative types who served during Clinton's presidency -- especially among the career civil service. I'd guess that not too many of your sterotypical "liberals" go into counter-terrorism as a career.

I'm just pissed off by the stereotype that liberals are soft on defense or, in this case, terrorism. If we're admitting that it's a stereotype, then that's half the battle. It's about as accurate as the stereotype that conservatives don't care about the poor. (Actually, that one is a little more plausible, since the poor vote and terrorists don't, but I digress.)

The lefty critique of the Bush war on terrorism is not that he's trying too hard, it's that he's trying the wrong things.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A dubious term to use, given that his complaint is that their bureaucracy stifled the program he had going in the Clinton Administration.

That's not what he was saying a while ago, pre-book-sale time:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
That's not what he was saying a while ago, pre-book-sale time:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

I don't think that's actually what Clarke is saying now, either. I'd interpret his beef differently than Ty did in that statement.

Also -- the facts cited in the Fox transcript that you linked to seem to be consistent with the facts Clarke sets forth now. (At least those in the first several paragraphs -- all that I read.) The difference seems to lie in his interpretation of those facts -- which I suppose is a legitimate subject for comment.

OTOH, one would expect someone testifying on behalf of the Bush Administration -- as Clarke apparently was in August 2002, to put forward the perspective of the administration. I've been very tangentially involved (an observer actually) in preparing witnesses for testifying before Congress -- and I assure you that they don't wing it. The statements are vetted up and down the ladder.

S_A_M

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't think that's actually what Clarke is saying now, either. I'd interpret his beef differently than Ty did in that statement.

Also -- the facts cited in the Fox transcript that you linked to seem to be consistent with the facts Clarke sets forth now. (At least those in the first several paragraphs -- all that I read.) The difference seems to lie in his interpretation of those facts -- which I suppose is a legitimate subject for comment.

I also don't see much in there that directly contradicts what he is currently saying, aside from the fact that he isn't so openly critical of the admin. Which would have been a pretty funny thing to do in a background briefing.

OTOH, one would expect someone testifying on behalf of the Bush Administration -- as Clarke apparently was in August 2002, to put forward the perspective of the administration. I've been very tangentially involved (an observer actually) in preparing witnesses for testifying before Congress -- and I assure you that they don't wing it. The statements are vetted up and down the ladder.

Clarke said something much the same in his testimony today, that he was told to accentuate the positive and downplay the negative, or something like that.

In my view it's a BS move to release a background briefing by an admin official when it serves the president's interests, but at the same time refuse to let the national security advisor testify to the commission trying to get to the bottom of 9/11.

I've only got the audio webcast, so I should allow for the possibility that he's wearing a turban and carrying an AK-47 at the witness table, but Clarke sounds pretty credible today under some pointed questioning.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't think that's actually what Clarke is saying now, either. I'd interpret his beef differently than Ty did in that statement.

Here's the pertinent part in my mind:

"January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. . . .

The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. . .

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

. . . .

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no [Clinton] plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the [Bush] administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I also don't see much in there that directly contradicts what he is currently saying, aside from the fact that he isn't so openly critical of the admin. Which would have been a pretty funny thing to do in a background briefing.

So you explain the differences by the facts that he was fired and then wrote a book. I think we're all saying the same thing here, aren't we?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't think that's actually what Clarke is saying now, either. I'd interpret his beef differently than Ty did in that statement.

He has different beefs (beeves?), I'm sure, but I was thinking specifically of the passages in his book quoted by Brad DeLong in the post from which I quoted here the last paragraph. I'm trying to get my hands on the book so I can see for myself what he has to say.

eta: In bilmore's subsequent post, he's emphasized language about what the Bush Administration decided to do in January, 2001. If you read the passages I refer to above, in DeLong's blog, you see that notwithstanding whatever was said in January, Clarke couldn't get anyone to do anything over the next eight months. It just wasn't enough of a priority for the new administration.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you explain the differences by the facts that he was fired and then wrote a book. I think we're all saying the same thing here, aren't we?

So you've never advanced, or argued before the Court, a position that you did not personally believe in while advocating on behalf of a client?

And, you've never subsequently expressed personal views on some issue different than the views you expressed while advocating on behalf of a client?

Here's a quote from Clarke's testimony today: "I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue."

That's really not so damned bad, is it? Yet the screeching is extraordinary.

S_A_M

P.S. A quick poll: Which Commissioner is most partisan in their questioning; (a) Lehman; (b) Gorelick; (c) Other; (d) None of the Above -- all of the commissioners are completely disinterested in politics and have no desire to advance a partisan POV.

[I'd vote for a tie between (A) and (B).]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. A quick poll: Which Commissioner is most partisan in their questioning; (a) Lehman; (b) Gorelick; (c) Other; (d) None of the Above -- all of the commissioners are completely disinterested in politics and have no desire to advance a partisan POV.

It's not clear to me that the national interest is served by having public testimony. Not that I want all of this hidden away, but I'd rather the commission take testimony out of sight, and then release the transcripts, etc., when they release a report. It's more important to get this stuff right, and I'm not sure the process is conducive to that when everyone is trying to score points for the cameras.

eta: I say it's not clear to me so that I can change my mind. Still unsure what I think about this.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

From the CNN piece:

"Clarke began his testimony with an apology to loved ones of those roughly 3,000 people killed in the attacks on airliners, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"'Your government failed you, and I failed you,' he said. 'We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed you. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.'"

That doesn't sound to me like someone who's passing the buck. So far, the witnesses at the hearing who I've heard have also minimized the finger-pointing. In addition to being an honorable approach, it could also be electorally effective. Think about it.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So you've never advanced, or argued before the Court, a position that you did not personally believe in while advocating on behalf of a client?

Sam, the gentleman's credibility on many of his factual assertions has been directly challenged. Further, his words have been characterized, by many in the press and on the side of the Loyal Opposition, as standing for the proposition that the Bush admin fucked up royally. So, first, his tendency to say what he perceives as being needed to best serve his current situation is very relevant right now as he sells his book and finances his retirement, and, second, the "screeching" is as much against the Brad DeLongs and Kevin Drums of the world drawing their conclusions for the benefit of their election spin as for the actual existence of Clarkes words. You know this.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you explain the differences by the facts that he was fired and then wrote a book. I think we're all saying the same thing here, aren't we?

We are if you're doing the talking.

eta he wasn't fired.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's not clear to me that the national interest is served by having public testimony. Not that I want all of this hidden away, but I'd rather the commission take testimony out of sight, and then release the transcripts, etc., when they release a report. It's more important to get this stuff right, and I'm not sure the process is conducive to that when everyone is trying to score points for the cameras.

I'm torn on that, too. I do like that this is all transparent and forms part of the national debate, and I hate it when we're only fed the massaged and acceptable conclusions at the end with none of the data, but I wonder what doesn't get revealed because of the cameras and mics. I think Rice's testimony would be most helpful, but I'm guessing the public nature of the hearings will preclude that.