Should Connie Rice testify?

[basketcase]

I've thought quite a lot about this, and see various sides to the issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4623066/

Essentially, my take is that Clark has either (1) sold out to some agenda in the Democratic camp, or (2) is acting out a vendetta because he feels his positions were marginalized. Other than those motives, what could compell him to come out as he has at this time?

Regarding 9-11, I recall the day vividly. Could more have been done prior to the attacks? Probably.

In hindsight, should Al-Queda been given a higher priority? Certainly.

And the operative word is, "hindsight."

Contextually, we all make decisions at a given point in time with the information we have. While we might second quess it later, we can only do the best we can with what we have, and can only hazard a guess at what we do not know. It is the "nature of the beast," so to speak.

Prior to 9-11, information about Al-Queda and potential terrorists attacks were just one stream of information among many "coming at" the President on a given day. Facing the same information, another individual in the same office very well might have done exactly the same.

The dangers of public testimony is that people loose their lives because of the formal breakdown of discretion. Put another way, our enemies sitting across the waters, or our own neighborhoods (apparently), are able to put together enough facts to ferret out the location of intelligence "assets." "Assets," as they are so casually called, are in fact human beings risking their lives on behalf of others. The fact is, a certain amount of secrecy is essential to effective government.

[lorazepam]

Clark was reassigned, thought he was demoted, became a disgruntled employee. He got back at them after he quit by writing a book. Some guys take a gun in their old workplace,and some write a book. It is all a dog and pony show anyway. Wonder what the other had is doing while they have us looking here.

[kbasa]

Originally posted by RickM
Other than those motives, what could compell him to come out as he has at this time?


How about his conscience? So far, he's the only person that was in the government that's bothered to apologize to the families of the victimes.

I don't see what discussion of Clark has to do with whether Rice should testify.

FWIW, I think she should testify. One of the things that keeps organizations honest is accountability. And right now, there's not a whole lot of accountability in Washington if you're on W's team.

[knary]

Originally posted by KBasa
How about his conscience? So far, he's the only person that was in the government that's bothered to apologize to the families of the victimes.

I don't see what discussion of Clark has to do with whether Rice should testify.

FWIW, I think she should testify. One of the things that keeps organizations honest is accountability. And right now, there's not a whole lot of accountability in Washington if you're on W's team.

I agree completely.

I simply don't trust my government enough to let them have as much discretion as they might like. This sentiment isn't party specific.

[Emoto]

Well, he should have apologised, having been the point man for terrorism under Clinton and Bush. Old Bill had 4 points in time where he could have caught or killed OBL but he was too weak or preoccupied to bother.

I think Rice's testimony (as has been hinted by a dem who heard the closed session) will discredit most of Clarke's assertions. Hell, even Clarke's own words over the years are contradictory. The thing that we have to be careful about is the separation of powers and it seems that they have worked that out to everyone's satisfaction.

[Ironhorsecowboy]

I personally do not care as long as important info is not made public that would even further jeopardize our Iraq/AlQuada mission. We know we have terriorists here at home and anything these people can find out to further degradate the situation they will do. As far as Clark, well Jim Angle's report (taped from Clarks own words ) should tell everybody that Clark had an agenda to discredit the current administration. Yes accountability is needed in government but with all politicians and their respective agendas I rather doubt will see anything but the same Kerry or Bush. I do feel like Bush has the upperhand on protecting our country from what Kerry has stated many times over on his policy beliefs. Just my opinion and everyone else has one too even though it may differ. I don't think we could have prevented 9-11 from happening with either political powers in office at that time. The terriorists are to well organized to shut them down in a short time. IHCB

[eljeffe]

I think Dr Rice's testimony would be able to set the record straight on a few things; however, allowing (or forcing) her to testify might set a bad precedence by giving Congress the impression that they could abuse their Legislative powers to call members from the Executive Branch to testify on any topic on the whim of Congress. Basically by forcing Dr Rice to testify violates the seperation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Now, the compromise that was made yesterday (or what I heard on NPR) was that would allow Dr Rice to testify with the understanding that it is a one shot deal and not a license for Congress to call anyone from the White House for just any reason.

[Emoto]

Originally posted by eljeffe
I think Dr Rice's testimony would be able to set the record straight on a few things; however, allowing (or forcing) her to testify might set a bad precedence by giving Congress the impression that they could abuse their Legislative powers to call members from the Executive Branch to testify on any topic on the whim of Congress. Basically by forcing Dr Rice to testify violates the seperation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Now, the compromise that was made yesterday (or what I heard on NPR) was that would allow Dr Rice to testify with the understanding that it is a one shot deal and not a license for Congress to call anyone from the White House for just any reason.

You're right. She wanted to testify, but needed to be careful about it. It wouldn;t be a good thing for the legislature to think it was in charge of the other branches...

[Cliffy777]

The balance between the allmighty "right to know" and the ability of a government/military to effectively do it's job. I am glad she is going to testify as it would have looked real bad if she didn't. On the other hand, I don't want people at her level spilling their guts so that every Tom, Dick, and Osama know things they ought not know.

Hmmm - did Mr Clark jump up and down on 9/12 and put the hammer lock on the Clinton administration for missing their chances on putting OBL out of commission?

Politics is making me puke - I think I will vote for Kbasa for President (and I mean THE President....)

[eljeffe]

Hey KBasa, you gonna run for President?

BTW, it's nice to have a level headed political discussion, unlike the single point of view, presumptive political statements, illogical discussions started by our favorite leftist, Eric Bume

[basketcase]

Before Kbasa gets in the last word, I second Cliffy's motion! :D

[GSTom]

The bigger question is : should the BMW MOA Forum be a political forum, or should we leave our political views at the door. I would prefer that we agree to disagree about these transient matters and have more MC related chatter.

Look at the upcoming choice for president. Blue blood vs. blue blood. Both beholding to special interests (albeit different groups of interests) Career politicians both. Friend of the common man? You bet!!!

Yada Yada Yada I can't wait for the next 7 months of propaganda.

Back to motorcycling.

My $0.02

[RobR80/RT]

Seems to me this is a good campfire topic, so long as it doesn't get too radical or out of hand.

That being said, I'll share what I told my wife before we (the US) went into Iraq - if we do, we'll be embarking on a 30 year commitment.

According to my calculations, we have 29 years left - at about 87 or so billion per year -- so much for quality of life in the US.

But, isn't it a sad commentary on the state of trust between we the people and our public servents (called our government) that we have so little trust in what they are doing and so little awareness of what is going on that we have to listen to the hearings - prattling on and on for months and years afterword, as to who did, and who didn't do what ever should have or should not have been done.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if we could count on whoever we elected to do the right thing, and we could feel so secure in that confidence that we knew, without a doubt, that our elected representatives were really acting in our interest? That we wouldn't have to have whistle blowers and watch dogs letting us know that we are often governed by weak, vein, and greedy men (mostly) and women (to a smaller degree)?

And so, fellow friends and BMWMOA members, please remember that when you vote for the excellent slate of honorable men and woman (I won't mention any names Helen), running for election to the Board of Directors, the future of our club is going to be in their hands for the next few years.

Read about them in the April issue of the BMWMOA ON, ride with them, talk to them, get to know them, then VOTE.

You may not feel a part of the other election process, but you certainly can and should feel a part of this one.

(Now, how's that for gently heading the topic off in more BMWish directions?)

And, after a cold Minnesota winter, there's nothing more inviting than to get out the large economy sized jar of Valoline, grease up the insides of the leathers, and ride for about 200 miles in the hot sun to get the cold and stiffness out of the old bones.

Just gotta watch out for the sudden stops...

Ride safe,
rob

[basketcase]

But what is the deal with greasing the insides of the leathers with ... Vaseline? Have I missed something of substance, or is there a leathers joke or superstition behind the idea?

I have always treated my leather stuff from the outside with conditioner, and somehow, the thought of zipping on something greased down with petroleum jelly is just short of revolting -- IMHO, naturally.

Rick (just wondering) in AL

[lorazepam]

I have never put vaseline inside my leathers either. I scrape the bugs off and treat the outside.

[LTOwner]

Think she should not testify in public. We reveal way too much to the enemy about our systems and thought processes. 9/11 happened, and any reasonable person would have prevented if he or she could. The rest is just politics.

[ian408]

I feel there needs to be accountability in Washington. Today, it
seems (to me at least) that there's very little anyone's held
accountable for.

Whether Clarke is a disgruntled former employee or out to get
someone, he raises issues that should be dealt with and if that
means Rice testifies, so be it. For that matter, if Bush or Cheney
have information, they should provide it too.

Ian

[oldcarkook]

Well, I had sworn off any political discussions because I am here for the bikes, but at this point, I am compelled to offer up my view.

Short answer yes. For all the reasons stated here above in nearly every reply and then some.

Long answer, it's tricky. She has to provide some answers while protecting national secrets, security, and lives. I don't think it should be in public, but if it is, it should be with the understanding that she can invoke executive priviledge on any question without penalty.

I am still pissed at the current administration for not coming to the American People to tell us who screwed up on the WMD issue. The case for war (for me) was made exclusively on clear and present danger in WMDs. That case is now severely in question.

I have watched Clark on Meet the Press, Hardball, and many other news shows and interviews. I watched his testimony on CSPAN. I find him credible. I think he's taken a few potshots that were low, but basically, I find him to be credible and believeable. To open his discussion with an apology to the families and victims of 9/11 was a very very big thing for me. I am looking for an apology from GW on WMD. I also do not live in a cave and realize that he's got a book to sell, which at this point is now #1 on the NY Times list.

Damnit! I am digressing from the issue of this thread which is Conde Rice testifying before the 9/11 commission. This is why I can't get into political discussions. My hot Irish temper flares!

I think Conde Rice should testify for many reasons, not the least of which is SOMEONE from our current administration has to testify.

Now a little crow eating: I jumped on another member of this board in an earlier discussion about Saddam's capture. I have since carefully evaluated the evidence and I have little doubt that he was a prisoner that was handed over to us...that is very different from my belief prior. It's of no consequence since the objective was to get him and that objective was accomplished. To the person I jumped on, I offer an apology. You know who you are and so do I. I deleted that post at the time, but I feel honor bound to let you know that I believe I was wrong.

As far as testifying to the 9/11 commission is concerned, I think EVERYONE should testify - no exceptions. I also believe that within the President's inner circle and cabinet, executive privledge should be an option to not answer questions that may jeopardize any intelligence operatives still in place. If we ever needed good intelligence - it's now!

Finally - I rode the R11 all day today and I am glad I did. Buffeting winds made for interesting unexpected lane changes, but I wouldn't have it any other way. I am here for the bikes. I will try to stay out of politics hence forth.

[DesertRider]

Originally posted by oldcarkook
She has to provide some answers while protecting national secrets, security, and lives. I don't think it should be in public, but if it is, it should be with the understanding that she can invoke executive priviledge on any question without penalty.

All the Democrat clatter for Rice to testify has obscured one salient fact: Rice has already testified to the commission, over four hours of testimony. She testified behind closed doors for precisely the reasons you mentioned, that a lot of the answers she would have would give away information we don't want the bad guys to have. All this brouhaha has been only about forcing Rice to be put in a corner where she can be asked questions that she cannot answer publicly and therefore is made to look bad. It's a silly circus stunt and I'm ashamed to see that we the public were so easily manipulated into thinking that it was somehow wrong if she didn't show up on the TV circus.

I am still pissed at the current administration for not coming to the American People to tell us who screwed up on the WMD issue.

I don't know the answer to that, but I think much of the foregoing applies: In discussing the details of the WMD search, etc., how much of the information is stuff that we do not want the bad guys to know? And how much of the WMD issue has already been discussed in the many hours of closed-door testimony?

I have watched Clark on Meet the Press, Hardball, and many other news shows and interviews. I watched his testimony on CSPAN. I find him credible. I think he's taken a few potshots that were low, but basically, I find him to be credible and believeable. To open his discussion with an apology to the families and victims of 9/11 was a very very big thing for me.

It was precisely that "apology" that sealed him as not credible to me. The apology turned out to be nothing but grandstanding, because he mouthed the dramatic apology for the cameras, then spent the next few hours and his whole book saying how it was all everyone else's fault -- Clinton's fault, Bush's fault, Rice's fault, the Pentagon's fault -- everyone's fault but his own.

He has also lied, blatantly lied, about things that can be verified. He said the warnings weren't taken seriously, yet it now turns out that in the summer before 9/11 U.S. agencies were for weeks on the highest state of alert ever against terrorist attack. He implied that Rice knew nothing about Al Qaeda when she came to office, yet it's been clearly shown that she'd been talking about Al Qaeda long before. What I read out of that is that if Clarke was either wrong or lying about things we can verify, what should we trust him on the things we cannot so easily verify?

Clarke was bitter after being pushed out of the inner circle and later denied the job he wanted, and he's taken his revenge. Simple enough, maybe even understandable, but it does not commend him as credible and certainly not unbiased.

I think Conde Rice should testify for many reasons, not the least of which is SOMEONE from our current administration has to testify.

There's the manipulation again. Lots and lots of people from the Administration have provided testimony already. Go look it up (www.9-11commission.gov) -- it's already happened. Lots of people from the administration have testified, including cabinet heads, most in private (as most hearings have been), a number in public. Even the President and Vice-President have said they will testify. Yet you've been flat-out suckered, just as most of the public has been, into thinking that no one from the Administration has gone before the commission.

The whole commission process, which I thought was a good idea at the outset, has been manipulated into being an anti-Bush shill, to the point of even setting its report release date to coincide with the first day of the Democratic convention. It's very sad that it's been cowed and manipulated this way -- it would have been a great idea to do an honest assessment that would not become a political football.

[BMWRider]

Originally posted by RickM


In hindsight, should Al-Queda been given a higher priority? Certainly.

And the operative word is, "hindsight."


Bingo!
That sums it up quite nicely. :thumb
I think to try and pin all responsibility on Rice or Bush is ludicrous.
But obviously that hasn't prevented a lot of folks from trying to do so. :rolleyes

[kbasa]

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

[Fang]

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. :brow

[DesertRider]

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

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.

[kbasa]

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.

[lorazepam]

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.

[Emoto]

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.

[knary]

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.:brow


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....

[DesertRider]

Originally posted by knary
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.:brow

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? ;)

[knary]

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

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? ;)

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. :D

[RobR80/RT]

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.

[DesertRider]

Originally posted by knary
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.

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? :brow

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. :D

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. :)

[oldcarkook]

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.

[knary]

Originally posted by DesertRider
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.)
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? :brow
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.
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.

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.

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.

[GeoffMiller]

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!:brow

[oldcarkook]

Originally posted by Geoff Miller
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!:brow

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.

[lorazepam]

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.