Why the investigation with Condolezza RIce testifying

---

Posted by peeweesgirl

---

Posted by september2004

---

Posted by kel2004

---

Posted by september2004

---

Posted by Jordan

...and now they're allowing her to testify.

---

this should be interesting...i wonder what public opinion will be...i can't for the life of me understand why people still believe in this administration...

---

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would believe Richard Clarke. He is so obvious with his dislike for Bush, and his partisan views. In 2002, he was praising Bush for his work against terrorism. Now he is out of a job, and all of a sudden Bush didn't do anything about terrorism? Gimme a break.

---

Did you read the book?

You don't think the administration and/or the media have their own spin on the 'truth'. He is by far the most intelligent and articulate man I have heard speak out in a long time... I am not saying I believe anyone 100%, but he really puts things into perspective and presents rather logical arguments...

---

And the fact of the matter is he is out of a job and now changes his view on Bush ??? I don't really think the media can twist that fact .

---

I just want to clarify that Clark quit his job. He was not fired. He served this country for 30 years in both Republican and Democratic administrations. He is also the only person that has admitted that HE failed us in regards to 9/11.
Also, Rice was always going to testify. She was originally going to testify in front of a private partial panel.

---

Posted by Becky

I haven't heard what Rice has to say (other than she doesn't want to testify)

---

This is not true. She does want to testify, the White House wouldn't let her. But now they are.

---

Posted by peeweesgirl

---

Posted by Jan05Bride

They are trying to establish if the White House had prior knowldege of AlQueda's plans and if they dropped the ball and it could have been prevented.

---

Maybe they should be looking into the Clinton administration....I think Condeleeza rice is one of the most intelligent women that we have had in a long time, and for the democrats to be pointing fingers @ her is a weak attempt , I think they are fearful of her and this administration so they feel why not tear them apart by mud slinging .

---

I couldn't agree more. The Clinton administration was fully aware of the situation and did nothing to stop it in his years in office. However, now they want to blame the Bush administration that was in office for less than 8 months when 9/11 happened! It seems silly.

Maybe Bill Clinton should have been protecting this country from terrorism instead of using a cigar on Monica Lewinski.

---

Posted by Mary

I couldn't agree more. The Clinton administration was fully aware of the situation and did nothing to stop it in his years in office. However, now they want to blame the Bush administration that was in office for less than 8 months when 9/11 happened! It seems silly.

Maybe Bill Clinton should have been protecting this country from terrorism instead of using a cigar on Monica Lewinski.

---

Where is the proof that Clinton knew that September 11th would happen? And with your reasoning, why can't we blame Daddy Bush for not taking care of business when he was in office?

Maybe Bush Jr should have put this country first instead of wanting to exact revenge on Hussein for his Daddy. His administration was gunning for Iraq from day one. And still, NO PROOF.

---

Posted by Jordan

---

Posted by Mary

I couldn't agree more. The Clinton administration was fully aware of the situation and did nothing to stop it in his years in office. However, now they want to blame the Bush administration that was in office for less than 8 months when 9/11 happened! It seems silly.

Maybe Bill Clinton should have been protecting this country from terrorism instead of using a cigar on Monica Lewinski.

---

Where is the proof that Clinton knew that September 11th would happen? And with your reasoning, why can't we blame Daddy Bush for not taking care of business when he was in office?

Maybe Bush Jr should have put this country first instead of wanting to exact revenge on Hussein for his Daddy. His administration was gunning for Iraq from day one. And still, NO PROOF.

---

I actually couldn't agree more ... I think that Daddy Bush dropped the ball a long time ago and this manifested under Clinton and Baby Bush was too wrapped up in 'sa-daaaam' to look at any other issues.

---

Posted by Jordan

---

Posted by peeweesgirl

Maybe they should be looking into the Clinton administration....

---

Um, he's no longer president.

---

Really ,thanks for telling me I meant his adminstration when he was president

---

Posted by kel2004

---

Posted by Becky

I haven't heard what Rice has to say (other than she doesn't want to testify)

---

This is not true. She does want to testify, the White House wouldn't let her. But now they are.

---

I suppose it depends on which side of her mouth you are listening to. She really was saying 'I would like to testify, but I am in a position that has historically never testified, and I don't think that we should start that kind of precedent now.' To me that means she doesn't want to testify.

BTW - that was a paraphrase, not an exact quote.

---

Posted by Jordan

---

Posted by Mary

I couldn't agree more. The Clinton administration was fully aware of the situation and did nothing to stop it in his years in office. However, now they want to blame the Bush administration that was in office for less than 8 months when 9/11 happened! It seems silly.

Maybe Bill Clinton should have been protecting this country from terrorism instead of using a cigar on Monica Lewinski.

---

Where is the proof that Clinton knew that September 11th would happen? And with your reasoning, why can't we blame Daddy Bush for not taking care of business when he was in office?

Maybe Bush Jr should have put this country first instead of wanting to exact revenge on Hussein for his Daddy. His administration was gunning for Iraq from day one. And still, NO PROOF.

---

So Clinton had no idea ever since the first attack on the WTC ?? Please like I said he was to busy doinking people in the dug out rather then stepping up to plate .

---

Posted by kel2004

I think it's pretty obvious that both administrations failed to protect us against terrorism. Richard Clarke knew of the danger, and nobody would listen to him. Fine. But I think it's disgusting the way he has changed his views in such an obvious attempt at revenge on Bush for not promoting him to the cabinet position he wanted in the Dept. of Homeland Security.

---

Yes, they failed us and it goes further back then Clinton and Bush Sr. I think that Clarke came out not because he was not made Dir. of Homeland Security, but because he saw himself as being setup perfectly in a scapegoat position.

First of all- Clark is an INSIDER. He first worked for Bush Sr., then Clinton, and then George W.. Do you mean to tell me that all THREE presidents kept a LIAR on their staff for 16 years!

Come on people- open up your eyes.. Try to think WHY Bush would try to assasinate Clark's character instead of showing hard, firm facts that prove OTHERWISE

Look at both sides of the story- just not what both parties are feeding to you- then you will be truly 'in the know' of what is going on in your country.

---

Posted by heidla

---

Posted by kel2004

I think it's pretty obvious that both administrations failed to protect us against terrorism. Richard Clarke knew of the danger, and nobody would listen to him. Fine. But I think it's disgusting the way he has changed his views in such an obvious attempt at revenge on Bush for not promoting him to the cabinet position he wanted in the Dept. of Homeland Security.

---

Yes, they failed us and it goes further back then Clinton and Bush Sr. I think that Clarke came out not because he was not made Dir. of Homeland Security, but because he saw himself as being setup perfectly in a scapegoat position.

---

bingo!

---

Posted by Sassyz75

First of all- Clark is an INSIDER. He first worked for Bush Sr., then Clinton, and then George W.. Do you mean to tell me that all THREE presidents kept a LIAR on their staff for 16 years!

Come on people- open up your eyes.. Try to think WHY Bush would try to assasinate Clark's character instead of showing hard, firm facts that prove OTHERWISE

Look at both sides of the story- just not what both parties are feeding to you- then you will be truly 'in the know' of what is going on in your country.

---

well said

---

Posted by NYCHICK

This is all very much 'after the fact'......it seems like an incredible waste of time........while we plunge further and further into debt trying to sustain 3 countries NOW people want to point fingers.....i honestly don't get it.....what is the anticipated outcome? Are they planning to prove that Bush was an inefective President?

---

I'm just taking a guess here but you know the saying if you forget history you are destined to repeat it...they SHOULD try and find out where they went wrong so it doesn't happen again. I know I never want to run from falling buildings again, if I'm lucky enough to be running.

---

Posted by peeweesgirl

---

Posted by Jordan

---

Posted by peeweesgirl

Maybe they should be looking into the Clinton administration....

---

Um, he's no longer president.

---

Really ,thanks for telling me I meant his adminstration when he was president

---

It's so difficult to decipher things sometimes.

Anyway, Clinton did try to do something...but when he did the Republican's just accused him of wagging the dog to cover up the Lewinski debacle.

And round and round we go.