Ooh. Careful. Now you almost implied the L- word. :censor:

I don't understand much of why they claimed for so long that the separation between the branches of power should be maintained, and then would suddenly change their opinion, though. Were there any specific reasons for this? Surely, if things go awry, Washington would have to answer to the Congress or some commission about why?

We should ask Clinton and Richard Clarke. After all, Clinton claimed Presidential Priviledge in order to keep Clarke from testifying before Congress in 1999. Seems the democrats weren't all that upset then. Wonder why they're so upset now?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Mm. And Clinton didn't even use it for protecting military or intelligence issues. But what is the practice on the Privilege, really? Wasn't it overruled in Nixon's case because of that 'the need for evidence outweighs the presidental need for secrecy', or something like that? And is this supposed to be only in criminal cases against the president's person, or would this be possible to invoke if the presidency is involved generally? Because, even with the many reservations of the 911- commitee, there are issues directly involving these people - so could he really claim immunity anyway?

i'll see what fox news has to say about it

__________________
I never ask for tolerance because as soon as someone asks for it they’re not being tolerant

When asked about Kerry's invitation to debate on the issues, George Bush responded, "We'll talk about that when Senator Kerry is finished debating the issues with himself."

According to Bush, Rices testimony will not set precedent.

Which would imply that the president really has every right to claim the privilege, right? The problem is that there is nothing else to indicate that the president could be able to claim immunity, when it comes to evidence in the commitee he himself have claimed will get to the bottom of things. Specifically, it seems to me that the current Security adviser would know the kind of information needed for the commission to determine whether the faceted system with cia, fbi, and whatever is to blaim rather than the policy- makers. And what(if any) significant changes occurred between the two last administrations. Perhaps Bushco found that a small truth would sound alot better than silence and allegations? Still, it's a damned if you do, and damned if you don't scenario, isn't it ;). But I must say, I'm truly still impressed that these hearings actually got initiated in the first place. And hopefully, something useful will come out of it, and not just Rice's resignation or something in that line.

I think it's funny to see everyone who opposed our actions in Iraq now try to jump on Bush for not being hard enough on terrorism 230 days into his presidency. I remember bringing this up on SR too, but no one wanted to go out on any limbs then. But now, here it is, Bush may have not heeded the advice of an advisor. He may have had evidence that 9.11 was being planned and he may have been able to stop it.

Well, what evidence did he have? Was it eyewitness evidence; did he have someone deep inside al Queda that could verify the plan? Was it cross-checked against other sources? What evidence could he possibly have had that, upon attacking al Queda, deep in Afghanistan (a sovereign nation, under no UN sanctions, a threat to no one), wouldn't have thrown every person who admonished Bush for attacking Iraq into a tizzy?

But he didn't do anything, did he? That's not commendable either, is it? Because 3000 people died. He should have taken action, regardless of the information he had. He was advised that something should be done; he should have done it. Even though Richard Clarke was recommending air strikes on al Queda bases - a clear violation of international law.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It sure does make it easy to condemn though, doesn't it? Funny.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

I don't blame Bush for not preventing 9.11. He probably didn't have the requisite evidence to prove that al_Queda was planning an attack, but after 1993, we did know that we were going to be attacked again, and it seems as if everyone who is talking reports that Bush never held security meetings and that he never pressured the intelligence agencies to exchange information. If Bush actually focused on terrorism, I would like to know what he did.

I would think that Bush would, at the very least, give the amount of meetings held, what actions he took (maybe he can't go into all of them, but he could talk about some), the instructions he gave, etc.

It seems as if all the "whistle blowers" so far have had alterior motives to accuse Bush of being obsessed with Iraq to the detriment of everything else, but I would like to hear all the actions Bush took on our behalf. Everything Bush does duing the workday is recorded. Why not release the dates of all the meetings and how long they were?

Like it or not, the intelligence agencies did not know what each other were doing, and Bush, as the head of the executive branch of government is ultimately responsible for making sure his agencies run properly.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

If we're talking about what was expected to happen after 1993, shouldn't more concern be focused on what Clinton was doing? If al Queda was the threat that Clarke keeps going on about, why didn't Clinton accept bin Laden when he was offered? Why didn't Clinton pass on a plan for dealing with al Queda?

It seems as if terrorism, all of a sudden, got real important after Clarke started writing his book. If it wasn't important before that, how can we expect Bush to be having meetings on it?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup