Headline on the Drudge Report: "CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos, Network Officials Say."

Drudge goes on to say that "After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a 60 MINUTES report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night, the NEW YORK TIMES is reporting in Monday runs. Developing... "

Dandy Don, clear your throat and get ready to sing.

One wonders whether the Kerry campaign will continue to let his family campaign for him after this gaffe down under.

A snippy Dan Rather returns to Dallas, and is captured for a comment by Fox News (hat tip: Johnny Dollar) 'Do You Feel Like You Were Duped?'

Beretta92fs. You're good. Almost as good as a Sig
but are cheaper. Thats why the US military
chose you. You're kinda scary.


What handgun are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Via Instapundit, this could be considered the "abridged" version of Unfit for Command. Admiral Roy Hoffman on the grand deception by John Kerry

This is a surprising outgrowth of Rathergate. I didn't hear Maloney's broadcast, although I live in the Seattle area. I wonder if Mary Mapes did? AP Wire | 09/18/2004 | Host Says Rather Criticism Got Him Fired

Does Robert Fisk earn a royalty every time the technique that bears his name hits the mark? Perhaps he develops a well deserved headache like this guy gets--and frankly, gives--from those annoying dot com loan commercials.

Antimedia at Media Lies fisks the LA Times here.

CBS continues to flail about, now repeating the tinfoil hat brigade's baseless claim that because "Buckhead" posted his guess that the now discredited Bush documents were in fact forgeries, and that the Republicans are somehow behind it all. CBS News: Bush Guard Docs Flap Marches On

I'd say that CBS' "story" resembles the plot of a Bugs Bunny cartoon except that I believe it would insult Bugs Bunny. Why, it's shocking, shocking I say to learn that REPUBLICANS post comments on REPUBLICAN WEBSITES. Oh, what a scandal!

CBS forgets to mention that experts it hired--but did not listen to--raised questions about the documents before the story aired. http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/hey-hey-hey-goodbye.html

The invaluable Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs passes along the judgment of a former IBM Selectric Composer expert on the capability and facility of that machine for the task of producing the forged documents. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12694_Composer_Theory_in_Advanced_State_of_Decomposition

CBS' chief remaining "document expert", Mrs. Knox, said that she used an Olivetti machine. I'm still waiting for a news organization to establish the types of machines in use by the TexANG during that period and their capabilities. We can already guess that the answer won't make Dan Rather very happy.

William F. Buckley lays into Rathergate with his usual panache National Review's Buckley says Rathergate is much ado about nothing.

From Corante, we have a very good summary and timeline of the scandal that takes us up to today's insignificant document release and the interesting connection between Burkett, the DNC and Max Cleland.

A connection between Max Cleland, the DNC and retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, the most likely candidate to be named the source of the now discredited CBS documents, may exist according to the Washington Post Parallels Drawn Between CBS Memos, Texan's Postings

Another sign that the Navy is slowly beginning to confirm some of the Swifties claims about Kerry's records. Navy Contradicts Kerry on Release of Military Records -- 09/16/2004

Apparently we have a "new journalism"

The documents and CBS' own pathetic efforts to line up "experts" to defend their authenticity have been so thoroughly destroyed that they could be referred to in an imaginary headline as "CBS' offer of news division for MOAB testing deemed success". Now we are told, paraphrasing the report that Brit Hume just gave on Fox News' Special Report, that CBS has interviewed Killian's 81-year old former secretary, an admitted partisan for Kerry, and found that she, too, is willing to put words in the mouth of a man who died 20 years ago and say that while the documents are obvious forgeries, somehow the spirit of them is true.

Well, at least CBS has found an "expert" that it will put on the air to debunk the documents.

However, instead of drawing back to report on itself, and how it was mislead and why, CBS plows on. It takes the word of partisans who have been disavowed--the secretary by Killian's family and some of his fellow Guardsmen--and Barnes who has been outed by his deposition in a Texas Gtech trial and his own daughter. No admission that the family was right--as were the blogosphere and some of the MSM elements who saw through the forgeries.

The comparisons to CBS reporting on the "flawed" WMD intelligence and CBS' stonewalling on the forged documents are enough to make one double over with laughter. I love Scrappleface's headline quoting Tenet as telling Rather that the documents are a "slam dunk".

If this stonewalling continues--in the face of overwhelming fact and the founding tenets of journalism after the days of the "yellow sheets"--after the evening news and 60 Minutes II tonight, we'll have a new nickname for Dan: Richard Milhouse Rather.

Update: Instapundit found this excellent take on CBS' public statements on the scandal.

This is dynamite, as though Rathergate hasn't already had its share of earth shaking revalations about the sad state of "CBS News" Captain's Quarters: CBS ignores its own experts' cautions

The ingenuity of our soldiers is a thing to behold. Seriously, this is very, very funny, especially the song on page 8.

RatherBiased.com | News | CBS Asks Anti-Bush Group for Help With Story.

If this is true, it certainly adds to the evidence that CBS enjoys a close relationship with those who oppose the President RatherBiased.com | News | CBS Asks Anti-Bush Group for Help With Story.

Cirque du Kerry--la danse acrobatique Taking Kerry's Flip-Flops Seriously

I suspected as much. The comments on this post offer some very valuable insights as well. Froggy Ruminations: Doubling Special Ops?

More WMD news from the U.N. that isn't fit to print in the old media. According to this report, the Iraqis shipped WMD-related materials out of the country before the war.

Drat! No smoking gun here. However, this may be one. As Bugs would say, what a maroon.

This is funny, and almost true.

A fair review of Kerry's stance on national defense, since it quotes Lurch extensively.

Good grief! From NewsMax.com: Brinkley hedges over Kerry's veracity.

Interesting reading. The man with the third name down will apparantly appear on the 9/5/04 edition of 60 Minutes.

Perhaps there will be more domestic employment and less immigration after the Halliburton engineers help get this great find south of the border moving.

I want one.

Personally, I thought it was a great speech. Much better than this one. And this can only be regarded as the pathetic rant of a desperate man.

The Chinese are free to act sanely in respect to their energy production plans and power plant construction in order to provide for growth in their population and industrial output. Contrast this with the US domestic record over the past 20 or so years, thanks to the restrictions imposed by our domestic enviro-wackos.

Having just been forced to buy a new washing machine, I'm somewhat distressed to discover that they populate the wilderness freely. Well, perhaps not inexpensively.

Is the truth out there?

Kerry is in a beehive that is swarming over his national security credentials, and the bees aren't finding any honey.

Kerry's buds were there, then.

This document isn't a perfect transcript, but it's close. The Mayor of America's speech was about as perfect an indictment of the failed Democrat Party's candidates as you'll find anywhere, though.

A new report reveals that Kerry was present at a meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which the group debated and voted down a plan to assassinate senators who supported the Vietnam War.

Maybe the MTV generation shouldn't be thought of as dumb after all.

The nightmare grows more intense for Kerry as former Navy Secretary and former 9/11 Commission member Lehman questions how his signature came to appear on a revision to Kerry's Silver Star citation Kerry citation a 'total mystery' to ex-Navy chief

The Navy now disputes "combat v" for valor for Kerry's Silver Star and four campaign stars for his Bronze Star. Vets question the number of citations for the two medals. Plot thickens after checking records

Admiral Schachte puts another torpedo in Kerry's first Purple Heart saga Lanny Davis attack awakens silent Admiral

Perhaps Kerry was inspired by this man's path to fame The story behind LBJ's Silver Star

Another excellent article that compliments Mr. Thomas' January article linked to below.

An excellent overview of why the Vietnam vets are so bitter about Kerry's testimony.

Bob Dole kicks, and the rice in Kerry's ass aches.

AAAAAIIIIIEEEEE!!!!!!! Say it isn't so, Ernie!

Hat tip to Instapundit

Here's an account of a memorable period during Kerry's service in the Senate

Meet Zack Exley, the Kerry campaign's director of online communications and organizing, courtesy of Swimming through the Spin: I don't practice what I preach because I not the kind of man I preaching to...

Vast conspiracy, but not the direction that the "main stream media" would have you believe The American Thinker: Why couldn't the MoveOn.org founders stuck with flying toaster screen savers?

I think that the controversy over Kerry's medals is the weakest part of the accusations against him. Witnesses have different recollections as one would expect. Again, take the example of an auto accident where reports from the cars in the accident may differ, and may be refuted or substantiated by third party witnesses. Certainly an adrenalin-fueled combat episode obscured by more than thirty years of time would be just as hard to pin down to the absolute truth. This is especially true when some of the witnesses are no longer with us. NewsMax.com: deceased Kerry crewmate Tom Bellodeau claims to have shot VC with B-40 launcher

While we're waiting for Kerry's secret plan to win the war, we can read about his secret record in the Senate. Sort of like those secret missions to Cambodia that none of his shipmates corroborate.

This is the most complete, best referenced indictment of UN, French and Russian complicity in Saddam's corrupt "oil for food" program that I have found to date. Well worth reading, and wondering about whether the reputations of those people and agencies who were co-conspirators in this scandal can ever be repaired, or if they and perhaps the UN itself must go. Erik Svane on "The Peace Camp's Humanitarian Scam"

Who handles pressure better?

The Democrats criticize the President for sitting in a class full of children for 7 minutes before leaving the FL school on 9/11.

The Democratic nominee has still not dealt with the charges made by the Swift Boat Vets directly by forthrightly answering their charges directly, point by point, including copies of his diaries and medical records, and calling for the Navy to release all contemporaneous orders, after action reports, river conditions (the winter months in Vietnam are the dry season during which the canals and rivers are at their lowest) and the corresponding orders to the Swift Boat crews on how to operate their boats on rivers that are narrower--and shallower--than may be safe to take a 35 foot boat with a 4 foot draft into enemy territory. He should call on the CIA, the Navy (on behalf of the SEALS) and the Army (on behalf of the Green Berets) to declassify any missions to Cambodia that were supported by Swift Boats during his time in service.

He should also call for the release of his attendance records in the Senate Intelligence Committee for both public and private sessions, and deal with those charges directly. He should have a news conference as the President did on his National Guard record after releasing all this material to the press for review.

Until he does so, the charges leveled by his critics will continue to have traction. The Carville-Lanny Davis tactic of attacking his critics rather than responding to their charges will not work in my opinion.

Just as I believe that the American people may not like George Bush in some cases, the one clear impression that they have at this point is that the President has responded to some of the most intense scrutiny ever by the press, pro-opposition forces not formally associated with a particular party (Soros, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Hollywood celebs, etc.) and that he has released, under pressure from these forces in some cases, more material that Kerry. The thoughtful voters among them should compare that standard to the standard Kerry is held to, and expect it from the press if the press is to remain credible. Even if voters have no idea how to analyze and compare the qualifications of applicants for the job of a CEO of a company, they should realize that they owe it to themselves to apply the same level of scrutiny to both applicants to determine the best qualified candidate. “Buyers remorse” after a Presidential election is difficult to handle for what will be a four year period full of challenges from Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, China and our allies in name only, France and Germany, to name two, not to mention the economy, immigration, health care, the morality issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), and a host of other issues we don't know will exist yet.

I ask again, who handles pressure better, a President who has been tested in almost every conceivable way, or the aspirant to the office who cannot address questions raised by critics head on, despite his promise to "turn his boat" towards his attackers.

More trouble for this guy from someone who was there.

Kerry and his handlers better hope that others in positions to know the names of individuals and/or units that were sent into Cambodia from the CIA, the SEALS, and the Green Berets--and when if at all in 1968-69--are dead or are very loyal Democrats.

This one isn't as spot on, in my opinion.

In a season that has been a failure by any measure, it is bittersweet to see the ancient Mariner announce that this will be his last Edgar hangs 'em up

No better friend, no worse enemy, indeed United Press International: An American in Sparta

In politics, nothing is more interesting than the Kerry Cambodiagate scandal. It may take him down, if the main stream media ask the questions any business manager would of an applicant who may have engaged in "resume inflation", depending upon what the meaning of "in Cambodia" is...

Yep, he'll have the full respect of the military and every living vet--just ask them. A word of advice, Flipper: don't impose on them to pose for pictures when they support the other guy New York Post Online Edition: news

Sounds like the Canadians have a hand on this immigration "issue"Toronto Sun: NEWS - Baring all for Canada

A slightly different report on Saddam's first day in court Rock Paper Saddam

As our local baseball broadcaster would say, "My, oh my!"

It appears that one of the main cornerstones for the enviro-wacko claims for global warming is wrong. The data have been fudged.

"'Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series' Energy and Environment 14(6) 751-772.
Abstract: The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperaturefrom 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxconstruction a temperauret index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century andearly 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 -- is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components."

Good grief! More proof that President Bush told the truth. Hopefully, not too late for the electorate to realize that they have the real deal in the White House now.

No, nope. Iraq had no WMD; no Sarin-filled shells (found by Polish soldiers), and certainly no nuclear material Defense Tech: IRAQI URANIUM NOW IN U.S. LABS

Well said by one who was there StrategyPage.com - Measure of respect- ?No One Asked Us

One of the first accounts of Iraqi reactions at the time of the handover of sovereignty on 6/28, including words that Mr. Bremer said in Arabic as his farewell to the nation IRAQ THE MODEL

Perhaps the week of June 28 through July 4 will come to be known in future years as "Independence Week". Here's a very nice post from an Iraqi living through the rebirth of his nation THE MESOPOTAMIAN

The promise has been kept. Iraq is a sovereign nation once more, to the dismay of naysayers and terrorists everywhere FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - U.S. Makes Early Handover of Iraq

You could lose your mind, or just press the button to see excellent impressions of those who have already done so spinline.net: The Leftinator

A titan has passed into history A Chronology of Reagan's Life - from TBO.com

Certainly, Ronald Reagan ranks among the great Presidents of the United States. He defined the second half of the twentieth century as much as FDR did the first. He helped America believe in itself again, and presided over what some economists call "the seven fat years" of growth from 82-89 that averaged 3.5% per year. His unwavering belief in his core principles, his steadfast refusal to accept a weaker position than the Soviet Union, his acts to curtail Libya and Cuban aggression against Grenada; all these examples and more made us believe in America as a force of good in the world.

He was unmatched at public speaking; this is one of my favorites.

President Bush has patterned his presidency after President Reagan's in many ways. His remarks from France were very appropriate and well said.

May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face;
the rains fall soft upon your fields and until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of His hand.

I'm glad that there is such consensus about the macro climate trends facing the planet Look forward to a darker world: 'Global dimming' may stop the Earth overheating.

Gee, this is inconvenient for the Bush haters out there Blaster's Blog - Plenty + More = Enough

More on the sarin nerve agent and mustard gas stories FOXNews.com - Top Stories - Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq

A very complete summary of the WMD hunt that covers the situation prior to yesterday's announcement of the exposure of two coalition soldiers to Sarin gas from an exploding shell and the reported find of Mustard gas two weeks earlier FrontPage magazine.com :: Found: Saddam's WMDs by Kenneth R. Timmerman

If the Sarin gas report holds up after investigation, won't it be the first time that an American soldier has been attacked with a chemical weapon since WWI?

There's no better source on the lives of average Iraqi citizens and their opinions on the aftermath of major combat operations than this site IRAQ THE MODEL I usually check it out a few times each week.

The author is an Iraqi doctor who is living through the days--good and bad--of Iraq's historic reconstruction. He's muddling through, as we all do, but doing so successfully. His stories are inspiring.

Andrew Sullivan's quote of the day features the remarks of one of our greatest Presidents:

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out where the strong man stumbled, or where a doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and who comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt.

The slaughter of Nick Berg should snap us out of our funk over the acts of the unprincipled prison guards at Abu Ghraib. We now clearly see the hand of the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq in action, and it is the hand of a monster. I looked at still images of the murder on the web earlier this week, and was shocked. I didn't want to watch the video. However, while driving home, I accidentally turned to a radio station that at that very moment started to play the audio of the murder. It was the most horrible thing I have ever heard. No human could commit that act. No other human could fail to condemn that act.

Our enemy is not human. That is, not in the sense that humanity has come to mean in the civilized world. Fanatic is not a sufficient description of them. The Memri web site has a transcript of part of the first recorded remarks made by Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi. He is the author of the letter to fellow Islamics calling for reinforcements, saying that the US-led coalition was defeating Al Qaeda, the B'aathist remnants, and the other insurgents in Iraq. His rhetoric has obviously escalated in its mad call for murder by any means; the more, the better.

Civilization cannot ignore these monsters. We cannot show weakness, or uncertain resolve. We must steel ourselves for the long slog to win, and win decisively. They are patient, they are determined, and they are usually skilled in using propaganda to try to make their point. At times, our domestic media seems more of an outlet for their cause than ours since it seems to take the statements of these monsters at face value while questioning the genuine resolve and honest intent of the President's. I can only hope that the legacy of Nick Berg's last moments captured in that video will be a call to arms to the sane part of humanity to act in the defense of the civilized world. There must be an end to them, or they will make an end to us.

I'll be saving my money to see Spider-Man 2 twice Telegraph | Opinion | These Hollywood special effects may cost the world $15 trillion

Abu Ghraib. Many would have us believe that the atrocities committed there will taint America's image among Arabs for generations. Some fairly senior members of Congress and other partisans lay the blame at the feet of Secretary Rumsfeld. Candidate Kerry blames the President, of course.

Let's agree that the acts of the 7 soldiers accused so far are reprehensible. Those acts do not represent the America that we hold as an ideal to the world. Those soldiers--and any who abetted them, ordered them, or photographed them--should be punished, if they are found guilty after a fair trial.

However, let's not forget that the general in charge did not spring into being in late January of 2000. Nor did the officers who commanded the reserve troops who are at the center of this scandal. They were all in the military for some time. The training that they received--or didn't receive--should have taken place earlier than the immediate maelstrom that the war on terror became after 9/11.

I am not blaming the Clinton Administration per se. I am pointing out that the so called "peace dividend", the task force to cut the size of government--those initiatives of the Clinton Administration cut military head count and material during the 90s. The rapid expansion of the economy in the 90s left military salaries behind the civilian sector as well. Many of the best NCOs (Sergeants and Navy Chiefs)--the ranks where the real "soldiering" takes place--left for better paying civilian jobs.

The situation reminds me of many wars in the past. At the beginning, incompetent, ill equipped, poorly led soldiers were thrown into battle and expected to make do as best they could. Kasserine Pass, the Battan Death March, early reversals of the Northern forces versus the Confederacy; take your pick, they fit the bill.

If the war is going to last a very long time, as everyone expects, we should expect failures like this as the strains on our forces wax and wane as they adapt from their former peacetime roles to combat conditions. There will be a weeding out of incompetent troops and commanders, of weak leaders and people of weak character. We will recruit many more Pat Tillmans to fill the ranks and serve honorably. We will show the world--the part of the world that can be shown anything that doesn't fit their preconceived view of America--how we can adapt, and how the vast, vast majority of our fighting men and women uphold the American ideal. Those who commit crimes will be tried and punished if found guilty, just as they are at home.

If the Iraqis as a whole have lost faith in us, the 25 million or so of them could wipe out the 140,000 US troops in a day or so unless we used nuclear weapons to defend them. That hasn't happened. That is enough of a "poll" for me to establish in my mind that most Iraqis--like most Americans--only hope for a peaceful, stable country that will provide them economic opportunity and a safe place to raise a family. The ideals that President Bush offers them--and by extension, all of us offer them--are the ideals that all mankind strive for, whether they can articulate them in a Jeffersonian fashion or not.

We will do the right thing to set this right. I like the idea of destroying Abu Ghraib, and rebuilding a more humanely designed prison in its stead. We are figuring out many aspects of the post war period as we go, just as we did in Germany and Japan nearly 60 years ago. Although we have no General George Marshal or General Douglas MacArthur to lead the occupation of Iraq through the trials of today towards a stable postwar entry into the family of civilized nations, let us prove by our deeds and words that we are willing to live up to the American ideal.

For my part, I don't need to see any more sick photos or any video to make that goal happen.

Some specifics to bolster Michael Porter's points from last night USATODAY.com - Intel CEO: Let's end political games and compete

Michael Porter, the acclaimed author of such books as Competitive Advantage, Competitive Strategy, and The Competitive Advantage of Nations, dropped a bombshell on tonight's Charlie Rose show on PBS. He said--paraphrasing--that the single most important change in tax policy since WWII was the change in dividend taxation proposed and passed by the Bush Administration and the Republican-led Congress. He said that the benefits are only starting to show, but that it will have many benefits, among which will be a change in corporate management's focus from maximizing stock price to simply making the business perform at its best and earn money.

His next book is the third in his series on competitive aspects of corporate behavior. I look forward to adding it to my bookshelf alongside the three I already own and have owned since their first editions.

Professor Porter also said that Kerry's proposal for adjusting tax policy to try to affect outsourcing was of negligible value. His greater concern, as is that of Bill Gates, is that the graduation rates of engineers and scientists are down, and that the ability of people with average levels of education (high school) to actually fill the many jobs that will be created in the future is low at best. Clearly we need fewer courses on self esteem, and more hard facts and emphasis on critical thinking skills.

One word: Ooo-rah! FrontPage magazine.com :: A Plea from a Marine in Iraq by Robert Nofsinger

Hmmm...what would one do with 500 tons of natural uranium in a single location? What would one do with missiles capable of traveling not the 93 miles allowed by UN proscription but 691 miles--a radius that includes cities in Egypt, Turkey and Israel? Why would one store large...LARGE...amounts of pesticides--each container is larger than the standard 55 gallon size--stored in an ammo dump the size of Washington DC? Would you say that this passes the WMD "smell test"? Don't inhale...the smell'l just kill ya Investigative Report
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found - Insight on the News - World

Ted forgot to mention the Internet, and blogs in particular, as alternative sources of information for younger audiences today. Otherwise, his speech makes a number of very telling points about the fate of the TV news business Poynter Online - Ted Koppel Bets on Quality

Those who claim to know better should know better, and do better. Sentencing the rest of the world to poverty and disease is an unintended consequence, but a real reason for the third world to despise and in some cases ignore the "first world"Earth Day / Has the environmental movement left the world behind?

For a guy who's supposed to be so worldly, so well traveled, so...nuanced in the way of the French, Kerry sure seems to only have one place on his mind Yahoo! News - Kerry Sees a Little Vietnam in Louisiana Coastline

After reading this excellent rebuttal to a Time magazine article by Andrew Sullivan in favor of higher gasoline taxes in the US, I predict lots of fun in the blogosphere over the next few days. The gauntlet--err, gas pedal--has been floored!

I have two words for you: "Well, now!" Iraqi Nuclear Gear Found in Europe (washingtonpost.com): "UNITED NATIONS, April 14 -- Large amounts of nuclear-related equipment, some of it contaminated, and a small number of missile engines have been smuggled out of Iraq for recycling in European scrap yards, according to the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog and other U.N. diplomats. "

"Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned the U.N. Security Council in a letter that U.N. satellite photos have detected "the extensive removal of equipment and, in some instances, removal of entire buildings" from sites that had been subject to U.N. monitoring before the U.S.-led war against Iraq."

I am no expert, but I have to say that this is a whole lot harder to explain than "My dog ate my homework", especially since the reporting comes from that notable oracle of pro-Administration advocacy, the Washington Post (/irony off). Like cockroaches under the kitchen light, can you imagine the diplomatic scrambling underway in the countries that are "housing" Iraq's former nuclear facilities?

I've written about the issue of Kerry's loan to his campaign that he secured with his jointly-owned Boston home previously DRUDGE REPORT 2004?.

Here's my post that is missing from my blog for some reason, but exists in my e-mail archives.

From:
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 12:40 AM
To:
Subject: I'm not voting for a "Gigolo in chief".


I'm not voting for a "Gigolo in chief".
- President Bush, his Texas unit, the Air Force Reserve and the active duty Air Force stood on ready alert in the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere against possible incursions by Russian bombers. Was their service any less vital to the safety of the country than those who fought in the Vietnam war? As far as thinking fast, how fast do you suppose one has to think fast at the controls of a >800 MPH fighter to avoid a solo accident or a mid air collision?

- The textbook definition of a recession is two successive quarters where the economy does not grow--it recesses. If your assertion that the recession started in March 2001, what policy initiative that the President proposed and the democratically controlled Senate voted for was in place to trigger it? Or is it more likely that it started in 2000 since the high water mark of the NASDAQ index was in March of 2000? The stock exchanges are widely regarded as reliable leading indicators of economic strength or weakness.

- VA spending has gone up every year under President Bush.
- If the troops lack equipment, blame the Congress that writes the bills and appropriates the money. The President can lobby for legislation and sign the bills. I don't agree with lots of things the President does, but Congress has long voted for entirely new systems, construction and other "jobs bills" disguised as military spending instead of supporting spare parts. Look at the flap over the Boeing tankers vs. repairing the perfectly serviceable 707-based and DC-10/L-1011-based tankers in service today. John McCain led the fight to expose that fraud.

- Kerry mortgaged his home for ~$6 million. The interest on a loan that size would be at least 2-3%--my second is 9%, and I have good credit. Three per cent is $180,000 per year. A Senator's salary is $158,000. If Kerry's wife is paying that loan, that may well be an illegal campaign contribution.

Perhaps this should be Kerry's campaign song.

Great wisdom, plainly spokenCold Fury quotes Patton

The New York Times reports in its April 13, 2004 editions that "Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology around the world, has told his interrogators that during a trip to North Korea five years ago he was taken to a secret underground nuclear plant and shown what he described as three nuclear devices, according to Asian and American officials who have been briefed by the Pakistanis."The New York Times > Washington > Pakistani Tells of North Korean Nuclear Devices

For the mathematically challenged, five years ago would be 1999, and the President's name was Clinton, not Bush.

Care to comment, Secretary Albright?

The good news is that one of the local papers here may have actually done some reporting on the millennium incident that took place at the US/Canadian border in 2000. The bad news is that they can't resist spackling over the errors to resurrect Clarke a bit The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Clarke book has errors about arrest of Ahmed Ressam

Paul Bremer of the CPA in Iraq said that the efforts underway to clear up the Sunni Triangle and to destroy Sadr's militia in Iraq were inevitable. Perhaps the situation could be likened to the efforts in the first half of the twentieth century to defeat organized crime familiesa and the KKK in America. The thugs in Iraq--Islamist radicals, former Baathists, and outside agitators from Syria, Iran and other countries--see an opportunity to create a failed state with vast oil reserves within striking distance of the most strategic area on earth. Roger Simon's post sounds an important warning: Roger L. Simon: It's Iran, Stupid! - A Message to the Blogosphere

The 9/11 commission is in danger of losing all semblance of credibility as a non-partisan effort. Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie S. Gorelick, Bob Kerrey, and Timothy J. Roemer all seem to have decided--and unashamedly state on TV and in print--that 9/11 could have been prevented, and should have been prevented--by the Bush Administration. To their credit, the chair and co-chair of the commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, seem to always appear together and have been generally fair in their assessments based on the information they've gathered and analyzed so far.

Ben-Veniste makes much of the title of the now infamous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing document that the White House declassified and released yesterday. He and the other four Democrats on the commission are trying to connect dots using hindsight based on what we know now, not on what the President and the NSC knew then. Apparently, the President was frustrated by the quality of the information he was getting on Al-Qaeda after the briefing.

Kerrey, who may or may not be campaigning to become Kerry's Vice President, is as bad as Ben-Veniste, although he doesn't have the crocodillian smile that Ben-Veniste has developed over the years. Kerry tries in his op-ed piece in the New York Times today to retract some of his more over the top comments for last Thursday's televised grilling of Dr. Rice.

Jamie Gorelick was a member of Janet Reno's Department of Justice. She apparently was a member of the team that imposed tight restrictions on sharing of information between the FBI and CIA. She was the first to see the PDB in full, and her notes on the document equipped the other commissioners to ask questions about it of Dr. Rice. She was as critical of Dr. Rice as any other member, especially when she tried to extrapolate warnings of possible hijackings in the U. S. to indicate that the plans could have been more sinister than just holding the passengers hostage, as most aircraft hijackings had played out in our past. There was no information in the PDB that could have been used to warn airlines--then in charge of airport security--that hijackers would behave in any way other than those who typically have demanded ransom, demanded freedom for prisoners, or simply used the plane to transport the hijackers to a foreign country.

Some of the structural failings that allowed Al-Qaeda to easily enter the US, to remain in the country after the expiration of their visas, to obtain funds, to contact foreign confederates in person or through electronic means, and to board aircraft carrying simple weapons and cannisters of pepper spray, have been addressed. Whether those measures are working well or not, no successful attack has been launched in the US since 9/11. It is arguable that further steps, including the creation of a separate agency apart from the FBI that is focused on domestic intelligence, should be taken, and soon.

No one can credibly make the case that either the Clinton or Bush Administrations could have sold Congress, the media, the punditry, and the public on the Patriot Act, the creation of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security, the possible FBI reform, and other steps we've taken since 9/11 to protect the country before 9/11 ocurred. President Bush could not have invaded Afghanistan in the way we did after 9/11 before the attacks--the nation would not have allowed it. As it is, the Patriot Act is criticized today, protesters blame us for civilian deaths in Afghanistan, and all sorts of regular people hate the TSA for everything from long, slow lines to taking nail clippers from old ladies.

Perfect safety is impossible. Tornadoes are not subject to regulation. Radical Islamist terrorists dream of a world in flames, then expect the remnants of that world to be ruled by mullahs who debate the merits of throwing offenders from the roofs of tall buildings or pulling walls down on them as just punishment for their sins. They reject vaccines and treatments for HIV, claiming in their ignorance that the medicines are worse than the diseases they treat, and place their faith in God to save the sick. They allow men to divorce their wives, leaving them without income or property, simply by saying "I divorce you!" aloud three times. They harshly punish the victims of rape, rather than the rapists. They are descendants from a long line of slave traders who continue to sell women and children into bondage to this day. They teach little else other than hatred for others, using demagoguery to deflect complaints from their people for the failings of their societies. They claim to be willing to die for their promised afterlife with 72 virgins. They claim that this life is a way-station to paradise, that children should be willing to die, leaving their loved ones behind in the name of a jihad they cannot understand, while secretly enriching the mullocracy.

Fate has dealt the world a cruel blow, granting a precious commodity that fuels the commerce of the world to a people who use their wealth for weapons they use irresponsibly, for the destruction of peoples in their region and without, to foster hatred for civilization and revenge for offenses almost completely unknown to anyone other than to themselves, and to doom generations of a populace kept in economic squalor and in a criminal state of ignorance.

Radical Islam has not had its internal upheaval and reformation, like the long efforts that ended sad periods in history like the Spanish Inquisition. External critics are threatened with death if not killed outright; some have been lucky enough only to have been exiled. If these radicals are to survive their war with civilization, cooler heads in the Muslim world must speak out now and act fast, lest they be tarred with the same brush that will consign these perverted Islamists to history. As for the 9/11 commission, I hope that the report will be more bipartisan than the previews given by the four partisan Democrats, and that constructive reform--of the Executive Branch as well as of Congressional oversight--will be the result.

It's nice to see that this is getting some attentionCNN.com - Dangerous?space rocks under watch - Apr 8, 2004

It's 4/4/04, or 04/04/04. A date more unique than any "Average Joe's".

A must read on the 9/11 inquiry TCS: Tech Central Station - The Commission, the Democrats and Terrorism

Even worse for the bad guys, they were blown away by, and unable to shoot down, a GIRL! Military.com

Sunday, 3/28/04, on Meet the Press:
Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
Clarke: No I did not.
Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
Clarke: Yes I did.
Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke: 'Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot. '
The Real Clear Politics web site's take: Clarke's statement before the 9/11 Commission was designed to leave the impression that he voted Republican in the 2000 Presidential race (in other words for George Bush), thereby innoculating himself against charges of partisanship. It's now clear this was a clever semantic ploy intended to mislead the public - and the Commissioners as well."

This is one of the most cogent arguments ever presented for the United States action in Iraq.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________COMMENTARY

An Essential War

By GEORGE P. SHULTZ
March 29, 2004; Page A18

We have struggled with terrorism for a long time. In the Reagan administration, I was a hawk on the subject. I said terrorism is a big problem, a different problem, and we have to take forceful action against it. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan agreed with me, but not many others did. (Don Rumsfeld was an outspoken exception.)

In those days we focused on how to defend against terrorism. We reinforced our embassies and increased our intelligence effort. We thought we made some progress. We established the legal basis for holding states responsible for using terrorists to attack Americans anywhere. Through intelligence, we did abort many potential terrorist acts. But we didn't really understand what motivated the terrorists or what they were out to do.

In the 1990s, the problem began to appear even more menacing. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were well known, but the nature of the terrorist threat was not yet comprehended and our efforts to combat it were ineffective. Diplomacy without much force was tried. Terrorism was regarded as a law enforcement problem and terrorists as criminals. Some were arrested and put on trial. Early last year, a judge finally allowed the verdict to stand for one of those convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ten years! Terrorism is not a matter that can be left to law enforcement, with its deliberative process, built-in delays, and safeguards that may let the prisoner go free on procedural grounds.

Today, looking back on the past quarter century of terrorism, we can see that it is the method of choice of an extensive, internationally connected ideological movement dedicated to the destruction of our international system of cooperation and progress. We can see that the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 2001 destruction of the Twin Towers, the bombs on the trains in Madrid, and scores of other terrorist attacks in between and in many countries, were carried out by one part or another of this movement. And the movement is connected to states that develop awesome weaponry, with some of it, or with expertise, for sale.

What should we do? First and foremost, shore up the state system.

The world has worked for three centuries with the sovereign state as the basic operating entity, presumably accountable to its citizens and responsible for their well-being. In this system, states also interact with each other -- bilaterally or multilaterally -- to accomplish ends that transcend their borders. They create international organizations to serve their ends, not govern them.

Increasingly, the state system has been eroding. Terrorists have exploited this weakness by burrowing into the state system in order to attack it. While the state system weakens, no replacement is in sight that can perform the essential functions of establishing an orderly and lawful society, protecting essential freedoms, providing a framework for fruitful economic activity, contributing to effective international cooperation, and providing for the common defense.

* * *
I see our great task as restoring the vitality of the state system within the framework of a world of opportunity, and with aspirations for a world of states that recognize accountability for human freedom and dignity.

All established states should stand up to their responsibilities in the fight against our common enemy, terror; be a helpful partner in economic and political development; and take care that international organizations work for their member states, not the other way around. When they do, they deserve respect and help to make them work successfully.

The civilized world has a common stake in defeating the terrorists. We now call this what it is: a War on Terrorism. In war, you have to act on both offense and defense. You have to hit the enemy before the enemy hits you. The diplomacy of incentives, containment, deterrence and prevention are all made more effective by the demonstrated possibility of forceful pre-emption. Strength and diplomacy go together. They are not alternatives; they are complements. You work diplomacy and strength together on a grand and strategic scale and on an operational and tactical level. But if you deny yourself the option of forceful pre-emption, you diminish the effectiveness of your diplomatic moves. And, with the consequences of a terrorist attack as hideous as they are -- witness what just happened in Madrid -- the U.S. must be ready to pre-empt identified threats. And not at the last moment, when an attack is imminent and more difficult to stop, but before the terrorist gets in position to do irreparable harm.

Over the last decade we have seen large areas of the world where there is no longer any state authority at all, an ideal environment for terrorists to plan and train. In the early 1990s we came to realize the significance of a "failed state." Earlier, people allowed themselves to think that, for example, an African colony could gain its independence, be admitted to the U.N. as a member state, and thereafter remain a sovereign state. Then came Somalia. All government disappeared. No more sovereignty, no more state. The same was true in Afghanistan. And who took over? Islamic extremists. They soon made it clear that they regarded the concept of the state as an abomination. To them, the very idea of "the state" was un-Islamic. They talked about reviving traditional forms of pan-Islamic rule with no place for the state. They were fundamentally, and violently, opposed to the way the world works, to the international state system.

The United States launched a military campaign to eliminate the Taliban and al Qaeda's rule over Afghanistan. Now we and our allies are trying to help Afghanistan become a real state again and a viable member of the international state system. Yet there are many other parts of the world where state authority has collapsed or, within some states, large areas where the state's authority does not run.

That's one area of danger: places where the state has vanished. A second area of danger is found in places where the state has been taken over by criminals or warlords. Saddam Hussein was one example. Kim Jong Il of North Korea is another.

They seize control of state power and use that power to enhance their wealth, consolidate their rule and develop their weaponry. As they do this, and as they violate the laws and principles of the international system, they at the same time claim its privileges and immunities, such as the principle of non-intervention into the internal affairs of a legitimate sovereign state. For decades these thugs have gotten away with it. And the leading nations of the world have let them get away with it.

This is why the case of Saddam Hussein and Iraq is so significant. After Saddam Hussein consolidated power, he started a war against one of his neighbors, Iran, and in the course of that war he committed war crimes including the use of chemical weapons, even against his own people.

About 10 years later he started another war against another one of his neighbors, Kuwait. In the course of doing so he committed war crimes. He took hostages. He launched missiles against a third and then a fourth country in the region.

That war was unique in modern times because Saddam totally eradicated another state, and turned it into "Province 19" of Iraq. The aggressors in wars might typically seize some territory, or occupy the defeated country, or install a puppet regime; but Saddam sought to wipe out the defeated state, to erase Kuwait from the map of the world.

That got the world's attention. That's why, at the U.N., the votes were wholly in favor of a U.S.-led military operation -- Desert Storm -- to throw Saddam out of Kuwait and to restore Kuwait to its place as a legitimate state in the international system. There was virtually universal recognition that those responsible for the international system of states could not let a state simply be rubbed out.

When Saddam was defeated, in 1991, a cease-fire was put in place. Then the U.N. Security Council decided that, in order to prevent him from continuing to start wars and commit crimes against his own people, he must give up his arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction."

Recall the way it was to work. If Saddam cooperated with U.N. inspectors and produced his weapons and facilitated their destruction, then the cease-fire would be transformed into a peace agreement ending the state of war between the international system and Iraq. But if Saddam did not cooperate, and materially breached his obligations regarding his weapons of mass destruction, then the original U.N. Security Council authorization for the use of "all necessary force" against Iraq -- an authorization that at the end of Desert Storm had been suspended but not cancelled -- would be reactivated and Saddam would face another round of the U.S.-led military action against him. Saddam agreed to this arrangement.

In the early 1990s, U.N. inspectors found plenty of materials in the category of weapons of mass destruction and they dismantled a lot of it. They kept on finding such weapons, but as the presence of force declined, Saddam's cooperation declined. He began to play games and to obstruct the inspection effort.

By 1998 the situation was untenable. Saddam had made inspections impossible. President Clinton, in February 1998, declared that Saddam would have to comply with the U.N. resolutions or face American military force. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and returned with a new promise of cooperation from Saddam. But Saddam did not cooperate. Congress then passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a vote of 360 to 38 in the House of Representatives; the Senate gave its unanimous consent. Signed into law on October 31, it supported the renewed use of force against Saddam with the objective of changing the regime. By this time, he had openly and utterly rejected the inspections and the U.N. resolutions.

In November 1998, the Security Council passed a resolution declaring Saddam to be in "flagrant violation" of all resolutions going back to 1991. That meant that the cease-fire was terminated and the original authorization for the use of force against Saddam was reactivated. President Clinton ordered American forces into action in December 1998.

But the U.S. military operation was called off after only four days -- apparently because President Clinton did not feel able to lead the country in war at a time when he was facing impeachment.

So inspections stopped. The U.S. ceased to take the lead. But the inspectors reported that as of the end of 1998 Saddam possessed major quantities of WMDs across a range of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence services of the world agreed on this.

From that time until late last year, Saddam was left undisturbed to do what he wished with this arsenal of weapons. The international system had given up its ability to monitor and deal with this threat. All through the years between 1998 and 2002 Saddam continued to act and speak and to rule Iraq as a rogue state.

President Bush made it clear by 2002, and against the background of 9/11, that Saddam must be brought into compliance. It was obvious that the world could not leave this situation as it was. The U.S. made the decision to continue to work within the scope of the Security Council resolutions -- a long line of them -- to deal with Saddam. After an extended and excruciating diplomatic effort, the Security Council late in 2002 passed Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one final chance to comply or face military force. When on December 8, 2002, Iraq produced its required report, it was clear that Saddam was continuing to play games and to reject his obligations under international law. His report, thousands of pages long, did not in any way account for the remaining weapons of mass destruction that the U.N. inspectors had reported to be in existence as of the end of 1998. That assessment was widely agreed upon.

That should have been that. But the debate at the U.N. went on -- and on. And as it went on it deteriorated. Instead of the focus being kept on Iraq and Saddam, France induced others to regard the problem as one of restraining the U.S. -- a position that seemed to emerge from France's aspirations for greater influence in Europe and elsewhere. By March of 2003 it was clear that French diplomacy had resulted in splitting NATO, the European Union, and the Security Council . . . and probably convincing Saddam that he would not face the use of force. The French position, in effect, was to say that Saddam had begun to show signs of cooperation with the U.N. resolutions because more than 200,000 American troops were poised on Iraq's borders ready to strike him; so the U.S. should just keep its troops poised there for an indeterminate time to come, until presumably France would instruct us that we could either withdraw or go into action. This of course was impossible militarily, politically, and financially.

Where do we stand now? These key points need to be understood:

• There has never been a clearer case of a rogue state using its privileges of statehood to advance its dictator's interests in ways that defy and endanger the international state system.

• The international legal case against Saddam -- 17 resolutions -- was unprecedented.

• The intelligence services of all involved nations and the U.N. inspectors over more than a decade all agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to international peace and security.

• Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal.

• He used every means to avoid cooperating or explaining what he has done with them. This refusal in itself was, under the U.N. resolutions, adequate grounds for resuming the military operation against him that had been put in abeyance in 1991 pending his compliance.

• President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those who criticize the U.S. for unilateralism should recognize that no nation in the history of the United Nations has ever engaged in such a sustained and committed multilateral diplomatic effort to adhere to the principles of international law and international organization within the international system. In the end, it was the U.S. that upheld and acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions on Iraq, not those on the Security Council who tried to stop us.


* * *
The question of weapons of mass destruction is just that: a question that remains to be answered, a mystery that must be solved. Just as we also must solve the mystery of how Libya and Iran developed menacing nuclear capability without detection, of how we were caught unaware of a large and flourishing black market in nuclear material -- and of how we discovered these developments before they got completely out of hand and have put in place promising corrective processes. The question of Iraq's presumed stockpile of weapons will be answered, but that answer, however it comes out, will not affect the fully justifiable and necessary action that the coalition has undertaken to bring an end to Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq. As Dr. David Kay put it in a Feb. 1 interview with Chris Wallace, "We know there were terrorist groups in state still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomena was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been very dangerous if the war had not intervened."

When asked by Mr. Wallace what the sellers could have sold if they didn't have actual weapons, Mr. Kay said: "The knowledge of how to make them, the knowledge of how to make small amounts, which is, after all, mostly what terrorists want. They don't want battlefield amounts of weapons. No, Iraq remained a very dangerous place in terms of WMD capabilities, even though we found no large stockpiles of weapons."

Above all, and in the long run, the most important aspect of the Iraq war will be what it means for the integrity of the international system and for the effort to deal effectively with terrorism. The stakes are huge and the terrorists know that as well as we do. That is the reason for their tactic of violence in Iraq. And that is why, for us and for our allies, failure is not an option. The message is that the U.S. and others in the world who recognize the need to sustain our international system will no longer quietly acquiesce in the take-over of states by lawless dictators who then carry on their depredations -- including the development of awesome weapons for threats, use, or sale -- behind the shield of protection that statehood provides. If you are one of these criminals in charge of a state, you no longer should expect to be allowed to be inside the system at the same time that you are a deadly enemy of it.

Sept. 11 forced us to comprehend the extent and danger of the challenge. We began to act before our enemy was able to extend and consolidate his network.

If we put this in terms of World War II, we are now sometime around 1937. In the 1930s, the world failed to do what it needed to do to head off a world war. Appeasement never works. Today we are in action. We must not flinch. With a powerful interplay of strength and diplomacy, we can win this war.

Mr. Shultz, a former secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. This is adapted from his Kissinger Lecture, given recently at the Library of Congress.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108052892146167601,00.html

Copyright 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

I'm looking forward to Congressman Shays next appearance on television Winds of Change.NET: Shays on Clarke

The more you look at his record, his record reflects the worst...on Clarke.

Charles Krauthammer its the nail on the head in this column Charles Krauthammer: Partisan Clarke

I think that Clarke enjoyed being President Clinton's source for the information Clinton received on terrorism, while knowingly or unknowingly insulating Clinton from criticism that he (Clinton) wasn't listening to his intelligence chiefs. Clinton could make public comments that implied toughness while remaining happily tied down by bureaucratic procedures involving DOJ, State, DOD and the NSC. Clarke blamed NSC chief Rice for his loss of direct access to the President under the Bush Administration. When Clarke did brief the President in a 1:1 meeting, his presentation centered on cyberterror, not bombings or hijackings. Clarke's knowledge of cyberterror has been found wanting by those in the know

Clarke appears to be a thin-skinned bureaucratic bully, skilled in playing and being played as long as he perceives the game is one he can win. However, by "sexing up" his charges against the Bush Administration in his book and before the 9/11 Commission while giving Clinton a pass, he's angered members of the Congressional Leadership enough that they may declassify portions of his testimony before Congress. While further besmirching his credibility--the small amount that remains--he could face Contempt of Congress charges. I find the legal danger somewhat unlikely, but Clarke is likely to wind up wishing he'd played it straight.

Gee, who would've thought that this analysis would have come from this source TIME.com: Richard Clarke, at War With Himself

After reading Rich Lowry's column Rich Lowry on Richard Clarke on National Review Online, I had these thoughts on the Clinton Administration's attitude on terrorism:

It is possible that President Clinton was fixated on trying to "Carterize" his legacy by moving the Middle East peace process forward at the end of his administration, and may well have been "distracted" due to his laser-like focus on the process (viewed somewhat favorably from Clinton's perspective) from rolling up al Qaeda. Perhaps his calculation was that an attack on al Qaeda wouldn't go down well with the Palestinians and their Arab allies, potentially sidetracking his effort. After all, the President hadn't really been called on the carpet for his failures to deal with terrorism; why worry now over the lives of a few sailors?

Also, it seems to me that the Clinton national security team was much more focused on process than results. Each new attack seemed to completely reset their deliberations, not add urgency and impetus towards an effective response.

One takeaway that these hearings have left me with is that another of the great failings of Clinton was his lack of faith in his ability to truly lead the American people towards an unpopular goal. Perhaps some of his advisors may have argued for reforms akin to the Patriot Act; some may have argued for more aggressive changes in diplomacy towards Pakistan and the other former Soviet countries surrounding Afghanistan that provided basing and other support after 9/11. He could have fired generals and/or his CIA, FBI and DOJ heads--anyone who wasn't pulling their weight towards solving the problem rather than finding excuses for inaction. He could have ordered a KH-11 to be tasked permanently over Afghanistan to watch for UBL instead of depending on the Predator and its limitations. He could have done a thousand things to demonstrate action over symbolism--his calculus seemed to be that the latter is always good enough for his image.

I find this article on the aftermath of 9/11 very interesting The New Yorker: Fact

Which Clarke is the real one? FOXNews.com - Politics - Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Dick Clarke: channeler of Alexander Haig, as chronicled here New York Post Online Edition: postopinion