So I guess a deal was brokered and Condi will testify. Cool. I understood why she was not going to, but I am glad she now will be in front of the commission. I don’t think anyone is going to learn anything, I don’t think anything is going to be accomplished- in fact, I gave up on that last week during the hearings, but it will shut the Democrats up.
I think what happens next is that we all need to push to get Clinton to testify under oath. We all remember how much fun he is when he is under oath. Hell, he doesn’t even have a law license to lose or an office from which he can be impeached. Putting him under oath could be really entertaining- who knows what kind of outrageous lies he might bust out.
As far as Gore- well, who cares. Putting Gore under oath would only do one thing- prove to America how big the rift between Clinton and Gore really is, how out of the loop Gore was during the Clinton years (really- reinventing government was important), and what a bunch of nonsense it was that the Democrats peddled in 2000 about all the important experience Gore would bring to the Presidency.
JKC
John-
In case you forgot, Bush was president on 9/11/01, not Clinton.
Besides, I believe Clinton has already agreed to testify.
John Cole
UMm, JKC- Clinton, Gore, Bush, and Cheney are all testifying- in the manner Condi was going to before it just wasn’t good enough.
MY point was that it would just be good clean fun to see Clinton under oath- we know how seriously he treats that.
HH
Gore needs to testify about the Gore Commission which might have prevented Sep. 11, which just happened to be immediately abandoned when the airlines gave to Clinton/Gore ’96.
JKC
Give me a break. As if a large number of you on the Fruit Loop right (no, not you, John) wouldn’t have tried to have Clinton lynched if he’d gone into Afghanistan pre-9/11. “Wagging the Dog, anyone? (And, to be fair, the Democrats would have done the same to Bush pre 9/11.)
Kevin Drum made this point first, but it bears repeating: if “everything changed” after 9/11, then it follows that things were different BEFORE 9/11. Had Clinton (or anyone else) suggested a pre-emptive invasion of Afghanistan to get bin Laden, he would have been committing political suicide.
BTW, Henry, if you have an actual cite for the “Gore Commission” you should share with the rest of us.
tom scott
Yo JKC,
here ya go. the Gore Commission
Slartibartfast
Not much in that Gore Commission report about aircraft being used as weapons. But I did notice that the positive passenger/bag matching measures implemented shortly after 9/11 were recommended nearly five years to the day prior to 9/11. And of course Bush bears several times the blame for not having implemented that measure in his first nine months in office as Clinton does for not having implemented it in his last four and a quarter years. Right?
tom scott
What I found interesting in the Gore Commission report was that amongst all the lawyers that contributed to the profiling section was CAIR. Also where was the pre-eminent sage on terrorism during the Clinton-Gore administration. I’m speaking of course of Richard Clarke.
Kimmitt
Lost a previous comment — if, Slartibartfast, one is to hold to the opinion that Bush has a significantly superior approach to terror based on his personality vis a vis a Clinton-style Democrat, then, yes, the nine months should have included some policy changes that did not occur.
dylan
Your failure to address the present and revalent issue and “retro-bash” Clinton is tiresome and overdone. I can listen to Rush and hear that same recycled junk. We know that you are better than that…..C’mon John
Slartibartfast
Now, Kimmitt, did you hear me claim Bush was doing radically different things about the terrorist threat in his first nine months? No. All I’m saying is there appears to be a double standard here; Bush is expected to have addressed issues that Clinton never did, even though he had a great deal more time (and a cabinet already in place) to do so. That’s all.
Kimmitt
Bush is expected to do so because he claims that he is vastly superior to the Democrats in this area. What we have come to understand is that pre-9/11 he was significantly inferior to his predecessor.
The one reason why we might be glad to have Bush as President instead of Gore is that the Republican Congress would have spent its time impeaching Gore instead of backing his efforts to deal with the security situation. Politics doesn’t end at the border for those folks.
Slartibartfast
“Bush is expected to do so because he claims that he is vastly superior to the Democrats in this area.”
Ah, but this is all part of the normal political give-and-take, and you shouldn’t take it all that seriously.