THE 911 COMMISSION: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
First, let me once again say, Condelezza Rice is just awesome! Anyone who saw her testify before the 9/11 Commission, or read the transcript, knows that every word she spoke rang true. You can’t say that about Richard Clark, but what you can say is that between Clark’s testimony, and that of Rice, the entire purpose of the 911 commission has been fullfilled and has been proven to be a misguided, politically motivated endeavor.
The 9/11 Commission was created to determine what actually did happen did happen in the months and years leading up to 9/11 and, what must we do to prevent it from happening again. Okay, on the first part. Have you learned anything new about America’s anti-terror efforts prior to 9/11 that you didn’t know P.C.?(That’s Pre-Commission). I haven’t. I know that important people from both parties and in all branches of government know what happened. They recognized the mistakes that were made and have been trying to correct them. Even Richard Clark’s testimony supports what everyone has believed from day one. We didn’t understand all that we should have been doing, but even if we had done everything we knew to do, 9/11 still would have happened. So why even convene the commission to determine what happens? Pure politics. There always has to be someone to blame, especially in an election year and, quite frankly, the 9/11 commission is causing harm to our war on terror.
On the second point, what we must do to prevent 9/11 from happening again, well, isn’t that a policy issue? As Rice’s elequent testimony indicated, we just were’nt set up to fight a war against terror. We looked at individual terrorists as criminals, not as fighters in a movement that was waging war against us. That has proven to be the thing we were doing wrong prior to 9/11. What should be happening is a genuine debate of ideas and strategies of how best to fight a war on terror.
Much ado about nothing.
One of the keys to success in politics is the element of surprise. You are likely to prevail by surprising your opponents and avoiding surprises. Condelezza Rice’s appearance before the 911 commission accomplished both. Condelezza Rice is just awesome! Anyone who saw her testimony or read the transcript knows that every word she spoke rang true. You cannot be so generous to Richard Clark.
zack Says: April 9th, 2004 at 10:32 pm
Well put.
Emory Says: April 9th, 2004 at 10:45 pm
Condelezza Rice truly maintained a stateswoman-like posture and gave an eloquent defense of the Bush administration’s actions in the face of the blatantly partisan questioning of Richard Benveniste.
Rosie Says: July 22nd, 2004 at 9:00 pm
Please tell our President to prove that Michael Moore is wrong in his accusations.
Andrew Says: July 24th, 2004 at 12:17 am
To not have an independent commission investigate the greatest attack on American soil in history would be a very “ignorance is bliss” approach to government. It doesn’t make any sense that so many Republicans were against it. Please remember that price of democracy is eternal vigilance. Would you have been against the Peal Harbor Commission too? I do agree that this commission was more of a “dog and pony show” than a real investigation. Why do they have to negotiate with Bush about “meeting” and not testifying under oath and how can they allow the presence of the VP. I don’t know of any real court or professional investigators that would allow that. I know I (nor any Republicans) wouldn’t need someone to hold my hand if I didn’t have anything to hide. Come on, I know your agree. Why was it so important that Cheney accompany bush and why couldn’t it be under oath. I hope this issue makes you wonder about Bush’s character.
Pay attention to Bush business ties with the Middle East and remember that it was Regan’s administration that supported both Bin Laudin and Sadam while Bush’s father was VP and this was shortly after he was head of the CIA. Any idiot can see the formula and the resulting compromising business ties that both Bushs have. It’s no a coincidence that Bush met with a Bin Lauding shortly after 911.
I personally don’t agree with any Machiavellian Ramiro De Orcco Approaches to foreign policy (look it up if you need to) because it robs people of their own sovereignty and self-determination. I’m sorry your president screwed all of us by putting us in an ugly occupation (this we can all agree on). I also hope you realize that your party will suffer for the performance of bush in the past 3 years. When and if Kerry sweeps the election I hope you will realize that an aggressive military stance on world politics is not in line with traditional American values. We discredited our country as promoting Democracy when we snubbed the world’s only global democratic institution by ignoring (and lying too) the UN. We like to think that we are a peace loving people and most of the world used to think that also. Now I can see a sort of fear around the world as the world’s super power has proven it’s former rhetoric of peace a lie. Peace loving people do not engage in Pre-emptive strikes! Remember the approach of Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and our involvement in WW2 (we stayed out of it until Pearl Harbor). This is a facts that no American can seriously deny.
I would also like to make a suggestion and request to Republicans that they start talking about facts and less about ambiguous words like freedom, patriotism, and terrorism. These words are open to interpretation. Facts aren’t. Remember George Washington was a terrorist to the British and both Bin Laudin and Sadam were freedom fighters against communism once. Are Iraqi’s now free? Is Michael Moore a patriot? How about soldiers who volunteer for service in bloody wars to serve their country like Kerry? Is he patriotic? I hope I’ve made my point about talking facts instead of ambiguous ideals.
I also hope all who read this read it with an open mind like I try to read all republican positions. Please talk in facts so I can better understand your position and I suggest you relay this request to your representative and friends also. Other wise we aren’t ever going to come to any sort of truths that both sides can agree on. Thank you for reading this.
P.S. If you still believe there was a link between Sadam and 911 then I would suggest you seek help cuz that type of brainwashing is a serious personal problem.
Emory Says: July 24th, 2004 at 12:25 am
Hmm… “Peace loving people do not engage in Pre-emptive strikes!” President Bill Clinton was not peace loving, then, since he launched an attack on Kosovo?
Andrew Says: July 24th, 2004 at 12:42 am
It wasn’t pre-emptive. By the time we got involved Bosnia was in the middle of ethnic cleansing and rape factories but I will admit that my knowledge of this conflict is limited. I haven’t researched it enough. Either way we had the support of NATO and the UN. Anyone want to take a guess why Saddam isn’t being tried in the World Court like the aggressors of the Bosnian war were? It wasn’t a one-side war we had most of the worlds powers behind us. Remember what I said about the UN and democracy? But don’t worry I have my problems with Clinton too. NAFTA sucks and so did his Telcom Act in 1996. I could care less about the sex cuz it really doesn’t effect the people of the US. Although if I got caught with a girl at work I would be fired but I figure the money Clinton had to spend to defend himself plus the fact that his presidency will always be known for his infidelity is punishment enough.
Emory Says: July 24th, 2004 at 2:07 am
Oops, sorry, in the previous post I mistakenly said “Bosnia,” which I corrected to Kosovo. Bill Clinton struck Serbia in the Kosovo war. Serbia did not attack the U.S.
draco Says: October 18th, 2004 at 9:37 am
ANDREW!
Im going to hit you point for point, and not insult you too much because you seem to want to actually have a dialogue, and we are both americans- however, you did accuse us of being brainwashed.
you stated:
“and our involvement in WW2 (we stayed out of it until Pearl Harbor). This is a facts that no American can seriously deny.”
the attacks of 9/11 WERE our Pearl harbor and worse, Andrew, they attacked civilians. There were people like you in WWII also, including people like Frank Lloyd Wright, etc., who strongly opposed getting involved against Germany, or anyone. The way this parallels WWII is that there is a growing threat in the entire middle east, and your blind spot is solipism, which means you assume they think how you think, which is naive. You really think the terrorists are only operating out of Afghanistan? and O.J. is innocent! The middle East, in particular (much less in indonesia, but still a growing presence) are, literally, schools of hate, much like the hitler youth Schools, that preach a message of Murder and destruction, particularily towards Jews and enyone they perceive as a ZOG- you know what that is, right (the problem is, I usually have to explain EVERYTHING, including acronyms that aren’t trendy, to you liberals)- The difference you see is actually not a differnce, in fact, if you thought WWII was necessary, then you must support this effort to pre-emptively squash any threat before it can do any real damage- like WWII did before we got involved.
you stated:
“Pay attention to Bush business ties with the Middle East and remember that it was Regan’s (I think you mean Reagan) administration that supported both Bin Laudin and Sadam while Bush’s father was VP and this was shortly after he was head of the CIA.” (which means he is smart and knowledgable)
well, andrew, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” -the art of war, by sun tzu -at the time, they were fighting russian communism, which we defeated, we can’t control what these people do beyond the first deal, if you think you can deal with these murderous, antiquated sultans, you are welcome to run for political offices or offer solutions- but all you liberals do is critique. Maybe you could give Osama a foot rub and make him cake and tea, and then the Jihad would stop- is that a solution? then what do YOU offer?
you stated:
“We discredited our country as promoting Democracy when we snubbed the world’s only global democratic institution by ignoring (and lying too) the UN”
The UN snubbed itself, much like the League of Nations (where is the L.O.N. now?- it no longer exists because it failed)did when they failed to enforce the Versailles Treaty on Hitler- it’s almost a direct parallel- why, oh why, do you criticize your own countrymen, when the organazation you just lauded failed to enforce their own ruling about Saddams cooperation on his inspection deadline- an organization sworn to protect the free world?
and, Clinton awarded a very similar no-bid contract to Haliburton during the Bosnian conflict, so don’t even start that bullshit. Cheney doesn’t need the pittance that will come from a 2% increase in Oil that Iraq will net us.
you stated:
“P.S. If you still believe there was a link between Sadam and 911 then I would suggest you seek help cuz that type of brainwashing is a serious personal problem. ”
oh… you had to go there and insult, ok then, here goes (you probably won’t last in this dialogue, but it seems like there’s hope for you- I’m a reformed liberal hardline activist):It’s sad that you DON’t see the link. Where do you think radical Islamic terrorists train? in Spain on the train or a plane? are you insane? there was graffiti and large memorial paintings adorning many walls throughout Iraq with appaling tributes to images of the twin towers on fire. Are you saying Osama and Saddam didn’t have similar goals? that’s like saying Tony Blair and George Bush don’t have common goals. Qaddafi is terified of the both of them- (because he worries about the instability of the region)- of Osama, anyways, as Saddam is now locked up. Again, you are guilty of Solipism, and know nothing about world history and politics. You may want to read up on the Third Caliphate and what that means to you. It is you, my freind, who has been brainwashed – read some of David Horowitz’s books- if you really want to understand how you’ve been brainwashed. Look, brother, it’s rare to see a liberal capable of thought for more than a few insults, and I am probably the most educated person on liberal strategy and issues you are ever going to encounter having a seriously radical liberal and political background (michigan united conservation clubs, greenpeace, sane/freeze, michigan consumer alliance(democrats), PIRGim(ralph naders public interest research group-in michigan), clean water action group, and Mr Jack Herer himself, of “the emporer wears no clothes” fame-the hemp activist. You’re going to be very angry when you discover that your freedom and liberty are being eroded by the ones you least suspected. I have hope for you, and that’s why I’m not going to get vicious. The differnce between us and a country like Iraq under saddam is that when you and i disagree, we don’t reach for our AK’s. Dont get sucked into liberal bigotry i.e.:” “Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia – good… Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq – bad… Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia – good… Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq – bad… Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia – good… Bush imposes regime change in Iraq – bad…” -posted by a member of free republic
if there’s anything i missed, let me know.
-yours in Democracy, the Freedom Fighter
“the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”
-Benjamin Franklin
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
Winston Churchill, Sir (1874-1965)
steve Says: December 29th, 2004 at 1:11 am
why if bush had nothing to hide, would he not testify under oath? obviously he has something to hide, and all of the republicans who voted for him are *ssh*les!
Sean Says: December 29th, 2004 at 10:28 pm
Andrew, wake up….We ARE NATO. The bulk of the NATO forces are U.S. Military. We didn’t have UN approval for the battle in Iraq, because Kofi Annan along with his son, France, Germany, Russia, and much of the rest of the world were making billions of dollars in the Oil for Food scandal with Saddam Hussein. They were also making untold billions by selling him weapons illegally. Obviously they didn’t want us to go in and remove him. Think once in a while. Oh and by the way, we have 30 countries in our coalition involved with Operation Iraqi freedom. We had 34 in the Gulf War. The coalition is virtually the same side; the only people who aren’t with us this time are the co-conspirators who were directly involved with Saddam.
As for Saddam’s involvement with 9/11, let me get this straight. There was Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda in Isreal, in Spain, in California, and in Southern Florida, but you don’t think there were Al Qaeda members in Iraq. Who is really brainwashed here? First of all we know for a fact that Saddam spent millions of dollars funding suicide bombers in Isreal at $25,000.00 a piece. That there is reason enough to remove him, because it links him to TERRORIST ACTIVITY! Second, we know that he DID in fact have WMD programs the only thing we didn’t find were large stockpiles; however, we did find several hundred thousand tons of weapons and munitions (most with a french or german stamp on them I might add) that he wasn’t supposed to have. Third, all the democrats in Congress looked at the same intelligence that the Republicans looked at as well as George Bush and Dick Cheney. They all agreed he was a threat and should be removed. The only reason they changed their mind as did you were PURELY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES IN AN ELECTION YEAR. You liberals should be ashamed of yourselves for putting politics ahead of the national security of this country.
Finally Andrew, what the hell is ambiguous about freedom. Your either free or your not. You’re either a slave to your government or your not. What is ambiguous about patriotism. You either a patriot or you not. And what in the world is ambiguous about terrorism. You either commit terrorist acts or you don’t. You either murder innocent men, women, and children for a militant religious group or you don’t. The lines here are pretty clear cut, and the only way they are not clear cut is if you stand on the wrong side of them.
P.S.: Excellent response draco.
Elise Says: December 30th, 2004 at 1:05 am
Excellent response you gave too, Sean.
Mr. Jack Says: May 17th, 2005 at 12:46 am
Actually I’ll there was no link between sudam and 9/11, 90% of the hijackers were Saudi’s, that’s where they train, but Saudi Arabia is our friend and has oil, and that’s all Bush Cares About, so we’ll go bomb Iraq.
And second, National security is a joke.
We spend more than the rest of the world combined on national security, and guess what? We’re still open to attack! ha ha ha!
Go to Europe for national security where they great you with automatic rifles. That’s SECURITY. Not this bull shit we have, putting 15 metal detectors in a row, let me tell you, if a gun gets past one metal detector, it’ll get past them all.
Mr. Jack Says: May 17th, 2005 at 12:48 am
and also, if you really read the transcript of the commision report, and duble check your facts, you’ll find that all of Rice’s statments were false, or minipulated facts to fit the bush administrations agenda.