Clark on Hardball Last Night re/9-11

[TNOE]

I've really been proud of all of the Democratic candidates (except Liberman)- I think Al Sharpton quick wit and barbs are great - he's smart, I like Carol Mosley Braun, again smart and well-spoken, I can even live with Gebhart -

I'm for Dennis Kucinich all the way but realizing he may not get the nomination I know it winds up to the top three - Dean, Clark and Kerry.

But after Clark said last night on Hardball when asked the question re 9/11 - that he thought it was very, very, very, very, very, unlikely that Bush knew - there is no way I can support him now. I know Eloril's posts drew alot of critisim about his ties to Caryle, etc. - but his answer proved to me he's covering for somebody - or alot of people. I cannot give my support to any Democrat running that does not want to get to the bottom of 9/11.

Anyone else feel this way?

[Renew Deal]

1. What show do you watch?

Is there a transcript for this? I don't recall him saying that. I do recall him saying that he wants 9/11 investigated. This is a smear until I see otherwise.

[HFishbine]

5. Q&A

MATTHEWS: Sir, during the past week, Governor Dean has discussed information being leaked to the Internet by conspiracy theorist that the president was tipped off by Saudis to 9/11 yet did nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you think of Governor Dean’s comments?

CLARK: Well, I wouldn’t make comments like that, because I think when you’ve been on the inside of the intelligence community and national leadership, you recognize that’s just a very, very, very low likelihood of ever having happened. I mean, it just doesn’t work that way.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1003084.asp

[TacticalPeek]

24. Alternatively,

did not Dean say flat out that he did not believe 'Bush knew'? Whereas Clark leaves a teeny tiny crack in the door?

Lacking an indisputable smoking gun with aWol's prints on it, Clark's seems the smarter play.

[JNelson6563]

26. no he didn't "flat out" deny belief

in Bush knew, he basically said all kinds of theories are out there, not necessarily backe dup by facts, due to the secrecy of the misAdministration on the 9/11 investigations.

He even went on to cite some of the theories. For which he has taken much heat and will no doubt be smeared for tonight at the debate.

Julie

On edit: The "he" I refer to is Dean.

[TacticalPeek]

28. Sorry to disappoint you:

"no, I don't believe that. I can't imagine the president of the United States doing that" - Howard Dean

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105081,00.html


Like I say, Clark left a wire to pull when appropriate. Dean sort of threw the bomb, then sez Who me?

Don't you agree?

[HFishbine]

35. Partial Quotes -- Dead Giveaway

of a weak argument. It makes a difference if one quotes Dean's answer in its entirety:

DEAN: ... which doesn't -- no, I don't believe that. I can't imagine the president of the United States doing that. But we don't know, and it'd be a nice thing to know.

It's abundantly clear that Dean doesn't believe it because the truth is simply not yet known. "...it'd be a nice thing to know," pretty much leaves the door open.

[TacticalPeek]

41. Puhleeze.

My #28 is plainly in response to JNelson6563's #26 stating "no he didn't 'flat out' deny belief in Bush knew". The quote in #28 is accurate, is a flat out denial, and directly contradicts the claim in #26. Where do you see any weakness in my argument that Dean said he did not believe that Bush knew? Its his words, that's what they say, and, like Senator Sam Ervin, I understand the English language, it being my native tongue.

-

Early in his career, Ervin gained notoriety for a remark he made when a state bill barring the teaching of evolution was defeated in 1925. Arguing against the bill, Ervin noted that if it passed, it would "gratify the monkeys to know that they are absolved from all responsibility for the conduct of the human race."

http://www.campbell.edu/news/releases/sp03/ns_rel.0060.html

[alfredo]

54. It is a challenge to bush to come clean. Tell the truth or have to

deal with conspiracy theories fed by secrecy.

[JNelson6563]

51. I personally asked Governor Dean

if he would get us clear and honest asnwers regarding 9/11 and stop the stonewalling.

He said yes, went on to state some of the theories kicking around and said it was because the WH has not been forthcoming with answers.

In fact, here's quotes, I'm "caller":

Caller: Once we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 9/11, and not stonewall it?

Dean: Yes. There is a report, which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 9/11.

Rehm: Why do you think he's suppressing that report?

Dean: I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far--which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved--is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not. And eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that should go to the Kean commission.

He's been slammed in the press for it too. Here's the thread about it when it was fresh meat, er, news:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=814999

And some reich-wingers are still trying to paint Dean as a wacko conspiracy theory nut for it.

Sorry to disappoint you. :hi:

Julie

[RBHam]

65. This is why Dean is the man

Because the unanswered questions and the suppressed truth about 9-11 is the key to the next election.

Bush has used 9-11 to justify his agenda, its time to turn it around on his ass.

[grannylib]

49. That was my thought too...wait until we have that smoking gun

and a Democratic Leader in the White House and then we can nail 'em; I think Clark was just being prudent, and I thought he was leaving the door ajar on that issue...maybe wishful thinking...

[KittyWampus]

30. "IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY"

That the Saudis used the internet to leak information to the Bush Administration.

That is PRECISELY what Clark said.

Why spin it any other way?

Why not ask the question: THEN HOW DOES IT WORK?

[TNOE]

6. One of the audience members (a student)

asked what he thought about Dean's allegation about the Saudi's and 9/11 - Clark hesitated a moment - and said he thought it was very, very, very, very unlikely. Maybe someone has the trascript to see exactly how it was asked and answered - but I got the distinct impression that he didn't support Dean's stance and does not support the "conspiracy theories" re 9/11.

[SahaleArm]

57. No he's not running on the conspiricy theory platform.

He's already on record demanding Bush turn over all documents to the 9/11 commission and that a full investigation should happen to detail intelligence failures that lead to 9/11. Conspiricy theories only work on DU.

[Starpass]

8. What is with this "everything's a smear" crap

I saw it. He said it. It was asked by a girl several rows in front of him, wearing a blue sweater with a big white snow flake on it, she had long blond hair. Is that enough for you??---or is this more smear, dirty, RNC infiltrating, commies, garbage. Yes, he did say that to the question she asked and he used the word "very" over and over and over. Now, it's also the right of any DU poster (or any American) to vote for whom they want for the reasons they feel. If the poster does not like what he said, then the poster will support someone they feel comfortable with. Are we going to run campaign '04 by telling Americans they are liars????

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Clark wants how Bush prepared for terrorism investigated

He is very critical of Bush for having been told that Terror was the greatest threat to National Security when he took office, and then seemingly ignoring it. Specifically Clark pointed out that Bush poured money and attention into his new ramped up star wars missle defence system as his answer to concerns about National Security even though it was Bin Ladin he was specifically warned about. Clark thinks Bush's non response to the terrorist threat needs to be thoroughly investigated.

Regarding whether or not Bush secretly was very specifically warned before hand about the impending attack on the World Trade Center, Clark expressed that it was very unlikely that would turn out to be true, based on Clark's prior experience of being privy to intelligence reports and the types of information they usually contain.

Personally I am much more likely to believe Bush covered up for important Saudi associates after the fact than that he consciously, tacitly allowed the World Trade Center and other targets to be attacked.

[Clemo]

12. Saudis

It's very suspicious and with the Bush Administration's history of telling lies, withholding truths, insinuating connections then acting like -what are you talking about, I never said that- (like we're stupid) way of governing and the fact that the report on it had pages missing specifically related to Saudi Arabia and no one outraged enough in Congress to get to the bottom of it, I can see a trust issue with the people's relationship with our current government.

It's not exactly unheard of. Pearl Harbor and the ignored info saying they were going to attack that laid on the president's desk.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I'm always supicious of the Bush Administration

I will put absolutely nothing totally past them, which is not exactly the same position as always believing the worst conceivable thing about everything they do (but it's still too close for comfort).

I agree with what another poster said about Democratic Party candidate stands on this question. Dean has to be careful with this one (and I'm not saying that he hasn't been.) People don't want to believe Bush went A.W.O.L. during the Viet Nam War, let alone believe that he was complicit in blowing up the World Trade Center. Pushing for a full investigation on Bush's inattention to responding to the threat of terrorism is the way to go on this one. Pointing out how Jeb Bush let friends of the Bush family from Saudi Arabia quickly flee the country after 9/11 is another promising line of attack. Let the facts and doubts develop their own momentum.

[HFishbine]

2. I had the same reaction

to that particular question. It appeared to me that he was more interested in discrediting Dean than in giving an honest answer to the question (or, perhaps he legitimately doesn't know what we on DU know). Either way, it was a less than satisfactory answer.

However, I thought Clark did a fine job with most of the interview.

[w13rd0]

3. I haven't seen it yet...

...but all the candidates, even the most outspoken (maybe Kucinich) on this matter, have been pretty cagey about coming out and saying, "Bush knew and did nothing." Perhaps wisely. That's just not the sort of thing someone on the national stage could say, at least at this point, without being villified. I'll have to watch it though, is it archived somewhere online yet?

[Loonman]

4. Hardballs at Harvard

Bleeahhh....preppie city.

[Atman]

7. Clark = Stealth GOP

The RNC's hedged bet.

I started out supporting Clark. I think Dean is a goober. But face facts, kids...unless something dramatic happens (which it will...I firmly believe Rove already has his time bomb ticking for a Dean surprise), Dean is moving ahead.

We MUST stop party infighting that threatens the chance of some dem, ANY dem, getting elected (except Leiberman or Clark, the two republicans on the ticket).

Each candidate should be out stroking each OTHER, not themselves...tell the audience why any one of them is a better choice than Bush, not why they are better than each other.

I loved Clark on Hardball last night. He was powerful, moving, and he stood firm against Matthews badgering, interupting and talking-over. But it was all too perfect. It is a set up. Clark is simply the GOP coming in to clean up after Bush, at their behest. He might "fix" Iraq, but at this point, I believe Iraq is one of the least of America's problems as a nation.

Bush is the most serious problem facing America. Bush, and only Bush.

[Starpass]

10. Atman---I think Rove has a surprise in store for any of our

candidates should they get the nomination. While I'm a Clark supporter, I think the person who would not sit and "take it" and bloody Rove/Bush nose if ever they started peddling garbage, it's Dean. I think Clark would be somewhat the same way but not do quite as good a job as Dean. Dean is not going to sit there and let Rove turn him into a Dukakis,etc. without letting the people know about Bush's drug snorting, drinking and playing tootsies with the Saudis.

[Anaxamander]

11. You can't be serious...

I loved Clark on Hardball last night. He was powerful, moving, and he stood firm against Matthews badgering, interupting and talking-over. But it was all too perfect. It is a set up. Clark is simply the GOP coming in to clean up after Bush, at their behest.

So Clark is a Republican plant and they ALLOWED him to kick ass on Hardball so he can get the nomination as an elephant in donkey's clothing? If the Repubs are so good at pulling these kinds of strings to benefit Clark, then why isn't he labeled as the front runner on MSNBC, Faux News, and CNN? Why aren't they helping him out against Dean?

[w13rd0]

15. Probably because he's not...

...there may be candidates I don't prefer. I may have reservations about Clark's candidacy (as a Democrat), but I don't think he's a bad man or a trojan horse. All the candidates are packaged products, even the ones that don't want to be seen that way. Clark is a particular package, and he's gotten some people involved that might not be otherwise. I'm ok with that. I don't think there are a whole lotta Gore voters who are going to go vote for Bush in 2004. Some that voted for Bush might be paying attention to the Democratic primary because Clark is there. Some will stick around even if he doesn't get the nomination. Same thing for Dean. Clark, Dean and Kucinich have all brought people into the primaries that wouldn't have been there...we're gonna need lots of that. We're going to need endorsements that attract the attention of people that pay attention to endorsements. We're going to need get out the vote efforts. We're gonna need to have a primary. Someone will win the primary process, and we must get all those that participated to stick around, then we have to continue to bring new people in. So, anyone have this Hardball online? I'd like to watch it, but I hate commercials. Come on, someone has to have archived it...

[floridaguy]

16. Clark shows Intelligence and Leadership

Clark's appearance on Hardball is just another example of his intelligent approach to leading this country. For those who wanted him to bash the President on 9/11, you are misguided. The "angry" Democrat as seen in Howard Dean this weekend in Orlando will do nothing to win the general election or bring this country back together. Our nation and our world has had enough of angry leaders!

If you think moderate Democrats, Independents, and dissatisfied Republicans will support a candidate spewing conspiracy theories, you're not paying attention to anyone except the far left. And the far left does not have the ability to elect the next President, and if you think otherwise, you're worse than misguided.

Wesley Clark is gathering support from the entire spectrum of the voting public, because he is bright, he is a leader, and he has positive visions for this country AND he is "electable". No one else has a better chance to remove Bush.

If you want to wallow in conspiracy theories and the
"water-over-the-damn" 2000 election, you, along with Al Gore, will assist the Democratic party in losing another election.

[TNOE]

21. You obviously are not aware

of how many people are TOTALLY PASSIONATE about this issue - the 3,000 victims families for one - that's a lot of people AND THEY DESERVE THE TRUTH. This is an issue that is so close to hitting the light of day - the wave is up in the air and the tide is about to break. It is very important and the facts go so way beyond "conspiracy theory" as to be ridiculous. The only conspiracy theory is the one the White House floated after 9/11.

These wives and mothers have been out there fighting tooth and nail for some justice, for some truth and I think it is time their suffering end and justice was served.

And you are wrong that MANY people are "over" the 2000 election - heads up - WE'RE NOT.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Your Logic Is Seriously Flawed....

Sorry.....

I could see someome arguing that the R's want the Dems to nominate someone they think Bush can beat easily but you seem to be arguing that the R's want a Dem (Clark) to win so he can beat Bush and continue GOP policies...

Your logic is flawed.....

[Atman]

33. That logic isn't flawed

A Clark win would be an odd kind of face saving measure for the GOP leadership. They know Bush is dolt and a fool, and it must be exhausting babysitting him all the time. He is universally hated, and the polls saying otherwise are lies...back to back news stories on CNN yesterday showed how seniors don't approve of him, NY'ers don't approve of him, unions don't, men don't, women don't, indenpendents don't, lots of republicans don't.

That is the key to Clark. Lots of republicans hate Bush and the image he is giving the party, but they, being black & whitists as most conservatives are, cannot admit they were wrong about Bush. To do so would be to admit their entire reason for being was a mistake. Bush is god...but, aw....too bad...Clark beat him. Oh, well. America spoke, right? But they'd be rid of the Bush albatross that will impact their own reelection chances, yet they'll keep a good republican at the helm, one who the dems even voted for.

THAT will be used against us too, with Clark...that when the dems wanted a real candidate, they chose a republican...and look, he's a great president! So just vote GOP next time anyway!

It may not make sense at first glance, but analysis presents many reasons why this could wind up being a brilliant GOP strategy. They win either way.

[SahaleArm]

59. Where's Scully and Mulder when you need them?

Do spend much time coming up with this stuff?

[Atman]

61. Lighten up.

My speculation is just that, a hunch, just a possibility presented as such. And it is not the slightest bit preposterous. In fact, as far as crazy conspiracy theories go, it doesn't even rank. It just makes sense. Look at all the other speculations in this thread, about what Clark's motives are, who he's covering for, etc.

But to you, simply running a Gopper on the Dem ticket to cover all your bases is just too far out wacky for Rove & Co to come up with? Take another bong hit.

[KittyWampus]

31. That's Why The RNC Doesn't Even Mention Clark On Their Website

But they list all the other Democratic Candidates.

[Qutzupalotl]

66. Or maybe it's because

they can't refute his positions.

[meow mix]

17. he left the possibilty

a small chance, is still a chance. so its still an open door.
what have the other candidates said? (concerning lihop)
nothing?
well at least i havent seen any statements..
show me where DK or Dean, say theres a chance bush lihopped. =)

[tonyv751]

18. Over analyzing statements can be a bad thing...

Clark probably doesn't want to be misquoted as repeating Hearsey. No one has yet proven that Bush had advanced warning and if it turned out to be false it would be the whole lying thing like back in 2000 with Gore.

Another possible explanation and one that I am more in tune with is that most normal people find it very difficult to think the President, Republican or not, would actually allow something like this to happen. It is just unfathomable that if true would shake the very foundations of our nation.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. That Would Be My Take, As Well

I didn't hear Clark say anything wrong in that statement. The original poster said that it meant Clark didn't want to get to the bottom of that. I don't know where that interpretation came from.

He was careful to not say anything he'd have to take back later, and that statement didn't let Li'l Georgie off the hook. It left plenty of room for incompetence to be the root cause.

So, i don't quite understand the picque displayed on this thread. I don't think anything was revealed regarding Clark's position on 9/11 that we didn't already know.
The Professor

[cosmicdot]

67. the whole lying thing like back in 2000 with Gore

what "lying thing" in 2000 with Gore?

[Rowdyboy]

19. You saw the most powerful interview of the year....

and thats what you took out of it? God help us all, we're certainly not helping ourselves.

[meow mix]

20. yup

scary huh

[TNOE]

23. Honestly - I didn't find it that powerful

and I liked Clark, thought he was pretty good on Letterman and was impressed although I've been leary of him. Glad he brought up PNAC which was huge but I saw a small town meeting with Dean - and I found Dean to be more powerful there. I find him to be honest and forthcoming - a member in the audience asked Dean about the "rumors" she had heard regarding Black Box Voting - and he was very outright - and said yes, this is DEFINITELY going to be an issue - when Diebold sends out memos in Ohio saying they are doing everything they can to see to it that Bush wins a second term - we've got concerns and HE is goingt to deal with it.

Sorry - but I am so sick of all the damn lies 24/7 from this administation - I am just dying for a little bit of honesty. And anyone who thinks 9/11 was an intelligence failure or a fluke or an unforseen accident, etc., etc., etc., has either NOT paid attention or has not done the homework like so many, many, many THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of Americans have. It is pretty much common knowledge in Canada, France, Switzerland, countries with a free press. We are dealing with evil people in an evil administration - and maybe our world needs to be rocked to its core by the truth to wake us up from our oblivian.

[tonyv751]

27. I agree and disagree...

I have seen most of the info that has been posted about the Bush administration and 9/11. There are many, many, many things that need to be explained. And, although I agree there was a massive intelligence failure from the top-down. I am not sure anyone can conclusively say that Bush knew and let it happen. There needs to be an investigation as Clark has been saying for months. I agree that the administration is suspect, but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

Let me get this straight, they had investigations on Clinton for 6 out of 8 years he was in office. Closely scrutinizing every move he made and the only thing they could come up with was he had a sexual indiscretion with an intern that should have been more between him and Hillary. Yet, we have a President who is covering up 9/11 security failures, falsely leading our country to war and we get nothing, nadda, zip as far as an investigation?

[madmom]

22. Clark on Hardball

I think Clark did a fantastic job against the so-called liberal press last night. It convinced my husband to support him.We have to put someone in there that can win, while I like what Dean has to say, he's to radical and some Dems and swing voters won't vote for someone like that.Gephart and Kerry are to wishy-washy, Kucinich doesn't have the name recognition yet. In my humble opinion Clark is the man.:thumbsup: :kick:

[rasputin1952]

62. Welcome to DU Madmom!...

just to give you a warm welcome!

:toast:

[madmom]

25. Hardball

Make sure to watch tonight Jimmy Carter is on, could prove to be very interesting.:kick:

[Loki]

32. I had to make a choice and I chose Clark.

Don't get me wrong, I like Howard Dean, I like his intensity and his anger, but I soon came to realize that it won't carry the middle and the moderates from both parties, and I had to come to terms with my own anger about the selection and this horrible administration. I look to the Houston mayoral election and the election of Bill White who was and is a moderate Democrat who came to the table with a positive message and solutions and a record of someone who has done the hard work. He had crossover votes to defeat the repuke/bush puppet Orlando Sanchez 68% to 32%. If we go with our anger, I don't think we will make it, and I think that is what Rove and Co. want. It didn't work for Sanchez in Houston. General Clark , in my opinion, has that inner strength, determination, what every you want to call it, that you find in men and women who have lived through war. I saw that in my dad who was a WWII vet, and I see it in Wes Clark. Will I base my support on one issue or one statement......no, because that attitude will not take us to the White House, and if we keep beating up on our candidates and each other, then we will lose. We won't just lose the White House, we will lose our country.

[enough]

34. An interesting development, though.

I didn't see the show, and I don't follow the day to day ups and downs of the various candidates.

BUT -- is it unusual or surprising for THIS QUESTION -- DID BUSH KNOW? -- to be asked on mainstream television?

That in itself seems pretty amazing to me, given where we started after 9-11.

I only see the internet and the papers, so somebody tell me if I'm wrong about this. Has this question been raised in the mainstream media often?

[Atman]

38. Dems should just keep asking the question

DID BUSH KNOW?

Over and over and over...

and let the implication that he did know carry the day. It is a tried and true GOP tactic, and it is time we used it to our advantage.

[TacticalPeek]

45. Very very very very very rarely.

I agree with Atman in #38, bring it up repeatedly, point out that we don't really know due to aWol's obsessive secrecy, the appearance of guilt by 'what do they have to hide?', 'what are they afraid of us knowing?', get the truth out to stop the rumors, etc.

Almost as rare is mention of aWol being AWOL, which is why my ears perked up last weekend when I heard Walter Shapiro on CNN (MSNBC?) mention aWol's "interesting attendance record while in the Nation Guard".

Let it drip.

:evilgrin:

[RBHam]

36. Clark will make sure that 9-11 remains covered up.

To protect the integrity of the office of the Presidency. Just like the Iran/Contra affair was covered up with the help of key Democrats (Lee Hamilton (D-Bushio).

It seems Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich are the only two with the courage and determination to really push for the truth.

By the way, if it was only a massive intelligence failure, why did no one get reprimanded? Why did no heads roll?

Instead, the FBI office head that spiked Colleen Rowley's attempts to get info on Massoui (the so-called 19th hijacker) got a PROMOTION and an AWARD. Rowley is out of a job.

And why was General Richard Myers PROMOTED to the HEAD of the joint chiefs after he failed so MISERABLY on that day. Where was the same Air Force that were so quick to peer into Pane Stewart's private jet 15 minutes after its transponder went off? Why were Standard Operating Procedures not followed on 9-11? Why did Myers refuse to answer question in Congress regarding this? Why did he plead "National Security" and then take the questions in a PRIVATE SESSION behind closed doors?

Wake up for Christ's sake. And for your own.

[RBHam]

37. I killed another thread

A talent that seems destined to be my curse.

[TNOE]

40. LOL

I think we all feel that way at times.

My intent is and was not to bash any candidate - but I was just stating my immediate reaction to Clark's statement - with the very, very, very, very - is that HE DOES NOT WANT TO GO THERE. And I think Dean will - and Kucinich might too. I don't want anyone of the candidates protecting their own skin with the issue of 9/11 - like I said - I'm ready for some honesty and I think America is too. This story is very close to breaking in my opinion and the hero Dem candidate is the one who will stand up and take the flak - Cynthia McKinney was brutilized for it - but that was more than a year ago - this is three years later and alot of people have done a lot of research and the lies are obvious and glaring as to what this administration have told us - and 3,000 people died. For democracy's sake - this issue cannot be swept under the rug or we will have another one and another one and another one. It started with the stolen election, then we got 9/11, then we got black box voting... if someone doesn't call them out - we're doomed.

I agree with the above poster - AT LEAST KEEP ASKING THE QUESTION - get it into people's minds - and if Bush is innocent - and can prove it by releasing his August 6 briefing - allow the 9/11 full access and funds to do its job - but trust me - HE WON'T.

[rasputin1952]

63. I don't agree that Clark would 'cover up' true info...

I think the situation here is that Clark is a man of integrity, and unless there is proof positive that bush did have knowledge (as in LIHOP), he would bring it before the American people. But, because he IS a man of integrity, he will not pass on innuendo and rumor. This si a man that deals in facts. His entire military career was based on gaining intelligence, making sure it was viable, then acting on what he knew. He would not sacrifice the lives of his men on bad intel; he will not sacrifice the country on bad intel either.

I find it a great attribute to NOT bear false witness against another. If there is truth to the bush LIHOP, Clark will find it, and let the rest of us know. If there is nothing there, so be it.

O8)

[DemCam]

39. Clark knows how things work...

He knows how intelligence works and he knows how government works, including the Secretary of State's office, the Pentagon, and the Department of Defense. He looked at intelligence every day of his life as SACEUR.

Do I think Bush knew planes were going to attack the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11 and let it happen for political gain?

Absolutely not. No more that FDR would have allowed our ships to be destroyed in Pearl Harbor.

I am not that cynical, even though I loathe and detest the Bush Administration and believe they are the most secretive and most destructive administration of my lifetime.

None of us can go down that road.

[TNOE]

42. None of us can go down that road

too late - many of us already have - and so have other countries. That cat is out of the bag for the most part - and there is no getting it back in, hopefully and in my opinion. In addition to these numerous websites listed - there are as many more that are not, and books have been written too. The American People have taken it upon themselves to find out the truth. The old saying - if the people will lead - the leaders will follow must ring true for this most important issue. Only the guilty parties and the galatically naive will holler "conspiracy theory" - so let them - scream all they want - but we'll scream louder for the truth.

http://www.pi911.com/

http://www.septembereleventh.org/

http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=KA01

http://www.communitycurrency.org/MainIndexMX.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/

http://www.911truth.org/

http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/NORAD911StandDownMath.htm

http://www.investigate911.com/itsbushstupid.htm

http://www.osamaskidneys.com/links.html#TOP

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00068.htm

http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/mcrow2.htm

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/September11.html

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=19


http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html

[meow mix]

43. still waiting

for someone to show me where another candidate has so publically addressed lihop.

clark says theres a chance. he's the only one? maybe dk?

[RBHam]

47. Dean alluded to the "theory"

Said it was an "interesting theory" that the reason the Bush White House was stone walling the commission's quest for his private briefing documents, and had redacted the pages on Saudi Arabia in the Congressional Report, was that the Saudis had warned him about
9-11 and that if it got out it would hurt Bush.

Of course, we know the REAL reason he's stonewalling and obfuscating and even threatening Democrats not to "Investigate too closely"...

Oh Max Cleland! We thought you were our shining knight!

How'd they get to you man?

[TNOE]

50. Ex. Sen Kerrey Joins 9/11 Commission - Replaces Cleland

----- Original Message -----
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:46 AM
Subject: Ex-Sen. Kerrey Joins Sept. 11 Commission


http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-sept-11-commission-kerrey,0,6733444.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines


NOTICE - THERE IS ONLY 6 MONTHS LEFT FOR THIS COMMISSION. THE TIME IS NOW.


Ex-Sen. Kerrey Joins Sept. 11 Commission

By LAURENCE ARNOLD
Associated Press Writer

December 9, 2003, 11:18 AM EST

WASHINGTON -- Former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., who served as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was named Tuesday to fill a vacancy on the independent commission studying the Sept. 11 attacks.

Kerrey replaces former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who left to become a director of the Export-Import Bank. The appointment was made by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

"This is the most important commission Congress has created in my time in public office," Daschle said, calling Kerrey the right choice to "aggressively pursue the facts wherever they may lead."


The panel, formally the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, has six months left in its 18-month mission to study the nation's preparedness before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its response after them.

[RBHam]

53. Ha Ha!

Daschle maybe snookered Bush! Bob Kerrey has already helped to expose his own role in "Operation Phoenix" in Vietnam. If there's one guy who's got the balls to actually get to the bottom of this it might be Kerrey.

Damn! I'm optimistic...

Something's wrong...there has to be...

[rasputin1952]

64. Bob Kerrey is one honest man...

and no matter what anyone says, it is hard to distrust a man who actually earned the MOH. I'm not suggesting sainthood here, but psychologically, the MOH is THE most potent symbol of an American patriot there is.

Kerrey's Governorship of NE, and his Senate seat add a lot of weight to this investigation. Bob will not let us down if there is a 'smoking gun'; I can promise you that!

O8)

[TNOE]

44. Intimated by FBI - Witnesses Claim 9/11 Cover Up in Progress

http://new.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=03/12/09/1012200



"Meet Mohammed Atta's girlfriend" -Watch the premiere episode! (12 min)
Coming up: "Welcome to Terrorland" -new book in February!

URL For Interview http://www.madcowprod.com/truth/ctonite56.html



http://www.madcowprod.com/

Intimated by FBI, Witnesses Claim 9/11 'Cover up in progress' in Florida
December 05--Venice, Florida
by Daniel Hopsicker



FBI agents harassed and intimidated witnesses to the 9/11 terrorist conspiracy’s activities in Florida, issuing warnings to avoid talking with reporters, report current and former residents in Venice, Florida.

[Ficus]

46. I disagree

I think Clark is honest - and comes off as humble (even if he isn't deep down). I thought his performance was great.

Do I think that he's covering up for Bush or something? Nope. I think he really doesn't think Bush himself knew. Clark comes off as a rational candidate - not one who will blame some conspiracy theory, but institutions who DID drop the ball for sure, such as the FBI and the NSA.

[RBHam]

48. If someone dropped the ball.

Why were they rewarded, not reprimanded?
The CIA, FBI and NSA received BILLIONS more in dollars afterward through the pork-barrelling Homeland Security Dep't.

Why was Myers promoted for failure?

[jokerman93]

56. Why Not Reprimanded?

Good way to buy loyalty inside the organizations.

Simple politics. Influence, not conspiracy.

That's my take.

[RBHam]

58. So....

You are incompetent, yet I'll promote you over a more able candidate because I want influence with the work force? Wouldn't that just engender mistrust in management and low morale?

[rasputin1952]

52. As I watched Clark last night...

I was also watching the audience as well, (OK, I watched Tweety's reactions as well). Here is what I saw:

1. Clark dominated the entire discussion.

2. Clark came as close to anyone has about the possible impeachment of bush because of leading the country into war on false information.

3. Clark avoided implicating Dean, Clinton or anyone else, including bush on LIHOP for 9-11. He wants it investigated, and the truth be known. He was NOT trying to start conspiracy theories.

4. Clark said he wanted this administration out of power in '04.

5. Clark stood his ground, and was not, in any way, taking bait from Tweety. In fact he slaughtered Tweety, by forcefully telling him he was going to answer questions before being cut off by Tweety. He was excellent in taming the shrew.

6. He was forceful in taking on the "gay marriage" issue; "Equal protection under the law". No one should ask for anything more than that. It IS a complicated issue, and I am for anyone that believes that every American is equally protected under the law; just as I am in favor of equal prosecution under the law: NO favoritism.

7. Clark chased no "red herrings", and neither should we.

From this, and other things I saw and picked up on; I have come to the conclusion that Clark is an unstoppable force in the political spectrum. The audience spent a LOT of time forward in their seats as Clark spoke; he commaded the attention of those there. He did this by being honest, deft at times, and avoiding being taken into lands that have proven disastrous in the past. The way he handled the Hillary question was exemplary. He blew Tweety right out of the set-up line of Hillary being the "evil bitch that will rule as president, at the earliest opportunity". Let's face it Hillary might want to be president, so what, so does every other member of Congress, (but THAT never comes up).

Clark did very well. He IS a force, and a very powerful one at that.

O8)

:kick:

[meow mix]

55. =)

that was an excellent overview ty

i liked the way he makes tweety shut it. treats him like a spastic goof, "ok - calm down and shutup and maybe youll learn something, im speaking now"
at least thats my impersonation hehe

[TacticalPeek]

60. Oh yeah, the "I" word. What a sterling press.

Not peep one have I heard about Clark mentioning impeachment. Guess I should not be surprised when whores act like whores.

snip

MATTHEWS: Do you think this vice president has gotten-do you think this vice president has got a sort of an extra constitutional role going right here now?
CLARK: Well, I think it’s the kind of-Bob Graham said if you take the country to war improperly, it’s an impeachable offense. And what we’ve had here is very hard for the American people to come to terms with this. But let me put it in very stark, clear terms.
When this administration came to office, they were advised that the greatest threat to American security was Osama bin Laden. Yet almost nine months later, there was no plan to deal with Osama bin Laden. Yet there were plans to start national missile defense and a lot of other things, but not to deal with the greatest threat. And then after 9/11, there was this massive bait and switch operation. I think they made the decision to go after Saddam and worked very hard to try to find the evidence to justify it.
But they failed. That evidence is not there. It was not there. It was the wrong war, it was an unnecessary war. And it’s a $150 billion mess today.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Back with General Wesley Clark. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
snip

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1003084.asp

Commercial break? Or political. Guess Tweety forgot to follow up on impeachment. No big thing, I guess. :evilgrin:

[tameszu]

68. Clark is the only candidate who has mentioned PNAC

And he's also the only one who has said that Bush should be "held responsible" for 9/11 and that we need to get to the bottom of it.

I also think, BTW, that it's very unlikely that Bush knew. If this country is going to work at all as a halfway civil democracy, we have to at least presume that the President would have warned the country about a terrorist attack, just like we presume people charged with crimes innocent until proven guilty.