Should Connie Rice testify?

I think it's been an endemic failure of responsibility of our intellegence organization, going back through at least the last two administrations.

Condi Rice & Clarke

What DesertRider said! IMO, DesertRider has summed up the situation succinctly. In all discussions of people's motives, the cardinal rule is: FOLLOW THE MONEY !!! Clarke has a book to sell, plain and simple, and no longer has a cushy Gov't job to fall back on. He's got to make his nut on this book, 'cause that's all he's got to retire on, I suspect - plus Social Security, I hope for his sake. Having deliberately burned his bridges with the Clinton and Bush administrations, he now has no choice but to flog his wares as if his life depended on it - because it does!

Not a pretty picture.

Don't be deceived by how polished an actor he is. They all are at his level of Gov't service, or they don't make it that high up the ladder. There's not one single "fool" in the bunch! Some are brighter than others, but the dumbest of the bunch is pretty damned smart. Trust me on this one.

KBasa said:

I think it's been an endemic failure of responsibility of our intellegence organization, going back through at least the last two administrations.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's at all fair, Dave. No matter how well one does anything, in hindsight it's always possible to see how it could have been done better. But that is a terribly unfair way to judge those who had to make decisions and take action without the luxury of hindsight and years to think it over.

I think what's become very obvious is that the intelligence and national security people under both Clinton and Bush were not asleep at the switch, and they did everything they saw at the time as proper and prudent to counter it as they saw it at the time. It's plain that no one anywhere had any inkling that Al Qaeda was capable of anything like 9/11, else they (either the Clinton or Bush administrations) would have done far more to eliminate Al Qaeda's capabilities before then.

It's thoroughly specious to say that "we knew they wanted to do things like that" as Richard Clarke is now smugly claiming (and a few on the 9/11 commission are now trying to use to partisan advantage). The fact is there are probably a thousand groups that claim to want to do evil things like that, and not only can we not go try to eradicate them all, but most of them will never go through with anything. If Richard Clarke and other blame-game partisans want to show themselves truly prescient, have them name publicly the next place that Al Qaeda will strike or the next group that will arise like it, and prove it. They're all geniuses in hindsight, but I don't see them sticking their necks out about what will come next, which is really what we need to know.

This whole blame-game process is nothing but an election-year stunt, pushed through by Democrats in Congress who shamelessly manipulated the grief of and sympathy for the families of the 9/11 families to have the commission formed, but with the aim of having an election-year club with which to beat Bush. The hard proof of that is that if the aim were really to find solutions, they would have studiously avoided the public-circus atmosphere they've so deliberately created. It doesn't take a genius to know that if you want to find real causes and solutions, you create an atmosphere where people are free to speak freely, not a public spectacle where everyone is forced to be fully defensive and try to deflect blame. That's why the commission that looked into what failed at Pearl Harbor did its work quietly and was chartered not to publish its results until after the war and after the next election. In contrast the 9/11 commission was chartered in the run-up to an election year, has insisted on public spectacle, and has set the release date of its report to coincide with the opening day of this year's Democratic convention. What fool is left who does not believe it to be political?

This should not even be about blame. One of the maxims I've found most useful in management is that if you want to recover from an organizational failure, put all your energy into fixing the problem, not the blame. This kangaroo-court commission is focusing on doing just the opposite -- lots of recrimination about who's to blame, no great effort put into how to fix it. It's a political battering ram, and we should not be suckered into believing it's anything more dignified than that.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I don't think there's any person or administration at fault here. I think there's a systemic problem that existed (exists) inside the intellegence organizations. That problem kept information from getting to a point where it could be acted upon.

While it's easy to run around and see if we can find a head to put on a pike, I've learned in business that many times, there's a problem with a system that needs to be addressed.

Systemic or organizational changes take guts, determination and time to solve. The most difficult part of that process is identification of the systems, policies and practices that led to the problem, since most of us have come from organizations that fix blame, not the problem.

In my experience in various management positions, I've always tried to fix the problem, assuming that personnel genuinely want to do a good job. If they don't, well, that's a different problem that gets handled a different way.

I have to agree, Dave. I think the secrecy and lack of information sharing between the various agencies is the root of the problem. If you can't put all the pieces together in an orderly manner, you will never achieve the desired result. Combine that with the Clinton administration's gutting of the CIA, and we had big problems. I do feel the book and the accusations are sour grapes, and an effort to capitolize on the current situation.

I think the biggest problem (aside from Bubba not taking any of the 4 opportunities he had to grab OBL while merrily gutting Intel) is the sheer volume of data taking in every day that must be analyzed. How many millions of items are there EVERY DAY? Very hard to connect all of the possible dots for all of the possible combinations.

Y'all are funny.

I love the "Let's not get into the blame game!" followed by, "Damn that Clinton for making the mistakes possible."

But Maybe that's more sad than funny.


Dave is pretty close to spot on, IMHO. Was 9/11 preventable? I don't know. Hind sight is rarely as clear and unbiased as it seems. But, FOR ME, the issue isn't 9/11. It is how we have dealt with the threat since 9/11. Cue debate about the Iraq debacle....

knary said:

Y'all are funny.

I love the "Let's not get into the blame game!" followed by, "Damn that Clinton for making the mistakes possible."

But Maybe that's more sad than funny.

Click to expand...

Read closer: The people blaming Clinton and the people saying we shouldn't be in a blame game are different people.

Do all non-liberals look alike to you?

DesertRider said:

Read closer: The people blaming Clinton and the people saying we shouldn't be in a blame game are different people.

Click to expand...

I may be dragging in baggage from other conversations in other forums. They all sorta blend for me after a while. It is a mistake. What I do hear, from the right, is lots of dodging and weaving and finger pointing that is as unpleasant as what some dems are doing.

Do all non-liberals look alike to you?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Are you suggesting that I'm a liberal? My usual answer to that mistaken observation is that I am PROUD to not be a conservative. Does that make a liberal? I dunno. I see myself as a moderate with libertarian leanings. And while I might be sitting somewhere in the middle, I probably look like a liberal or a conservative to those sitting out on edge.

All that really matters is that we all ride motorcycles, preferably ones with beaks.

Said I to my wife this evening -
"Rice sounds like some of the &corp managers I used to report to."

Substitute your favorite corporation name in the &corp variable.

You tell them don't do that, something awful will happen if you do. They tell you that it is a done deal. You tell them that things will fall apart if they do that, and they say -- live with it, deal with it, that's the way it is now.

So, after beating your head against the wall, making suggestions on how to forstall doom, putting forth 'just in case' plans, which are shot down, because they don't apply to our current business plan, the fertilizer impacts the ventilator.

After the dust clears, the wounded are treated, and the wreakage is cleared away, who is told -- your fault. You didn't try hard enough to convince me the threat was real, so you were the one who failed.

It's true, they all learn to dodge and weave like that.

If Paul Revere had been required to have a plan to defeat the British, we would still be colonies, and we would be speaking English, rather than 'merican.

It's just my opinion, and it didn't count for much then either.

For your information, you can place me firmly in the North of the political spectrum.

And, what if the British had decided to come both by land and by sea? What then? The old one if by land two if by sea wouldn't work. So you hang three in the church steeple - and hope that Paul would figure it out - rather than ride to the church for clearification.

As long as we are locked into two political parties, who cater to their own special interests, we the people don't stand a chance.

And, as a libertarian (small ell, thanque) I certainly don't want to hold an elected office, nor does any other sane libertarian. Just everybody leave everybody alone, and we'll get along fine.

Enough of this, let's ride!

rob

Signing off for now, thinking It's Better Manually.

knary said:

I don't know. Are you suggesting that I'm a liberal? My usual answer to that mistaken observation is that I am PROUD to not be a conservative. Does that make a liberal? I dunno. I see myself as a moderate with libertarian leanings. And while I might be sitting somewhere in the middle, I probably look like a liberal or a conservative to those sitting out on edge.

Click to expand...

Well, this terminology thing is difficult. I would never take you for a Libertarian (big-L Libertarian). I'm libertarian enough that for a time I even belonged to the Libertarian party, and you and I don't have much overlap.

One of the interesting things about this election is that, just like the 2000 election, there's no middle-of-the-road candidate running. It's not a 1976-like election, where it was hard to spot the difference between Carter and Ford, both middle-of-the-road politicians who happened to belong to different parties.

Instead what we have is Bush, who is a solid mainstream conservative, and Kerry, who is a dyed-in-the-wool left/liberal. The 1976 election was boring; this one won't be because there are real differences. It does make a good bellweather, though: If you're torn between Bush and Kerry, you're a middle-of-the-roader. If you'd much more pulled toward Kerry than Bush, then you can't even pretend you're not a liberal. (And likewise the other way around, of course.)

I'm betting you're a lot more pulled toward Kerry and Bush -- am I right?

Libertarians, where I lean and have at times had party affiliation, might have some beef with the general principles of both. (Anyone can disagree on details, but I'm talking about big principles here.) But Libertarians are a very varied lot. It's a pretty safe bet we'd agree big-time with Bush's tax cuts, opposition to additional gun control, and policies that favor enterprise and economic freedom, would oppose many aspects of the Patriot Act. But that's about all that's certain. Some Libertarians would agree with Bush's pro-life views, some would not. Some would agree with his foreign policy as proper defense of the country, some would oppose any kind of foreign entanglement. As with most Libertarians, I'm big-time for free-market reform in education, including vouchers, which I know you strongly oppose.

I guess I'm something of an eclectic -- favor more environmental protection than most Republicans, less than some Democrats. I agree with Republicans on gun control, disagree with them on the death penalty and civil liberties issues. I think Republicans have screwed up the 5th Amendment, Democrats have screwed up the 1st and 2nd, and both have trashed the 4th.

All that really matters is that we all ride motorcycles, preferably ones with beaks.

Click to expand...

See, I told you we don't have much overlap. I am happily, proudly, deliberately beak-free. We do agree on Oilhead Boxers, though, I guess.

I will say that all of the posts and points in this thread have merit, without exception. Thanks for the response to my post, DR, but I have not read Clark's book nor do I intend to. I have no interest in it whatsoever. DR - Your points are well taken.

I am by no means looking to start a political pissing contest over this. I was (am) unaware of any testimony behind closed doors by Dr. Rice. That being factual, then I agree that there is no need for any further public testimony. If you didn't get the answers you were looking for behind closed doors, then why would you expect to get them with doors open and bright lights on?

I am human, and I can still have deep legitimate concerns and acid indigestion about the lack of WMD at ANY level.

I have complete and total faith in our system. It is governed by the constitution that I swore I would defend and that promise will never die. I beleive we are doing the right thing...I just don't like going war over a clear and present danger that now appears to be neither clear nor present. That's it in a nutshell.

A friend's nephew was killed today (Kephart) defending our constitution in country. It is distressing for all of us to lose people we know in a war.

I must respectfully bow out of any further discussion in this thread because I am here for the bikes, and this is politics and I should have learned my lesson the first time around.

DesertRider said:

Well, this terminology thing is difficult. I would never take you for a Libertarian (big-L Libertarian). I'm libertarian enough that for a time I even belonged to the Libertarian party, and you and I don't have much overlap.

One of the interesting things about this election is that, just like the 2000 election, there's no middle-of-the-road candidate running. It's not a 1976-like election, where it was hard to spot the difference between Carter and Ford, both middle-of-the-road politicians who happened to belong to different parties.

Instead what we have is Bush, who is a solid mainstream conservative, and Kerry, who is a dyed-in-the-wool left/liberal. The 1976 election was boring; this one won't be because there are real differences. It does make a good bellweather, though: If you're torn between Bush and Kerry, you're a middle-of-the-roader. If you'd much more pulled toward Kerry than Bush, then you can't even pretend you're not a liberal. (And likewise the other way around, of course.)

Click to expand...

That's not true or an accurate analysis. I know several good republicans that are probably going to vote for Kerry as they can't stand Bush one bit. I am not terribly impressed with Kerry, but for reasons I have outlined before, I can not stand Bush (fiscal mess, social conservative). Kerry may, to you, be a "left/liberal" and Bush a "mainstream conservative", but I would have placed Bush further from the center than Kerry. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

I'm betting you're a lot more pulled toward Kerry and Bush -- am I right?

Click to expand...

Lesser of two evils. And Bush is the most dangerous president that we've had in a long time. No matter how bungled some of the Clinton, Reagan, or Bush v1 years were, they don't come close to this mess.

Libertarians, where I lean and have at times had party affiliation, might have some beef with the general principles of both. (Anyone can disagree on details, but I'm talking about big principles here.) But Libertarians are a very varied lot. It's a pretty safe bet we'd agree big-time with Bush's tax cuts, opposition to additional gun control, and policies that favor enterprise and economic freedom, would oppose many aspects of the Patriot Act. But that's about all that's certain. Some Libertarians would agree with Bush's pro-life views, some would not. Some would agree with his foreign policy as proper defense of the country, some would oppose any kind of foreign entanglement.

Click to expand...

I was a registered libertarian for years. I broke away, as I've said before, when I realized that they were stuck in 1787 with little hope of building an effective agenda for tackling today's problems and have a general disdain of public education.

As with most Libertarians, I'm big-time for free-market reform in education, including vouchers, which I know you strongly oppose.

Click to expand...

Actually, I have mixed feelings about vouchers. I'm neither for or against them per se, but I do see their support by the republicans as having less to do with reforming education and lots more to do with undermining the NEA (of which I also have very mixed opinions).

I guess I'm something of an eclectic -- favor more environmental protection than most Republicans, less than some Democrats. I agree with Republicans on gun control, disagree with them on the death penalty and civil liberties issues. I think Republicans have screwed up the 5th Amendment, Democrats have screwed up the 1st and 2nd, and both have trashed the 4th.

Click to expand...

It is a difficult path. As Kbasa has wisely pointed out, both parties have, for various reasons, co-opted issues that don't necessarily fit together and if you have a diverse opinion about different issues, it can be VERY difficult to find a candidate.

Why wouldn't a person read the book? Is this one of the don't confuse me with the facts kind of things? The biggest problem in the U.S. today is that we are all too lazy to study ALL sides of the issues and to become educated enough to make an informed selection at the polls! I am personally sick of both parties assuming that I make my choices based on sound bites. Ok, I'm off my soap box here. Think I'll throw it into the fire to try to stay warm until bikin' season!

Like a moth to a light - I can't leave it alone.

Geoff Miller said:

Why wouldn't a person read the book? Is this one of the don't confuse me with the facts kind of things? The biggest problem in the U.S. today is that we are all too lazy to study ALL sides of the issues and to become educated enough to make an informed selection at the polls! I am personally sick of both parties assuming that I make my choices based on sound bites. Ok, I'm off my soap box here. Think I'll throw it into the fire to try to stay warm until bikin' season!

Click to expand...

I will read the report from the commission. I believe in our system and I believe that the truth will be delivered by our system. There are some very tough cookies on the commission and I will beleive what they write.

The book is written by an unemployed former terror expert. His objective is to sell the book. The commission's objective is to find the truth. That's why.

Please someone make me stop reading this thread.

Some if the inaccurate statements Clark has made make me wonder about the credibility of the rest. It may not be contested due to national security. I will wait for the report. I have been listening to it on NPR this week as I drove. I think that the pubic testimony as well as the closed door hearings should make for an accurate assessment. As far as the candidates go, I wish I had a box marked "other" to choose. Both candidates have so much self interest and are beholden to so many people, that I wish I could eliminate them and choose someone else. If I have true freedom of choice, then why can't I ? I wish we could get enough people to agree on enough ideas and principles to start a legitimate third party. There that should kill it.