Clinton is testifing in private due to the "Classifed" nature of the info they want to ask questions about.
I don't think the treated Rice badly, she didn't answer the questions. She just said her Karl Rove prepared statements.

Geoff

Yeah right. A past, out of the loop, President would be testifying about classified..while the current CIA and FBI Directors, the current national Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, etc would not? If you only knew how silly you sound.

I think he's testifying in private because he did have some influence in the war on terror/Iraq/al Queda, as did Bush, which is the theme of the questions most probably.

I heard Clinton interviewed on NPR radio and he explained "why". I think you sound pretty silly with your ignorant replies....


Geoff

Come on Bleyseng, you know these guys don't want to hear any information from an ex-president who can actually articulate his thoughts.

You know it is not true, so why did you post it? Idoubt he said that, butif so, he is lying. We already know that he has admitted to lying under oath when the truth would make him look bad. That is why he was impeached.....remember?
Clinton's information was no more classified than anyone else who testified. They took Dr. Rice's testimony in private and then made her testify to exactly the same thing on national TV just to attempt to make political hay. They gave Clinton a pass. It certainly had nothing to do with classification...it was presidential privilege just the same as with Gore and previously with Rice. Using your previous reasoning (or lack thereof) regarding administration witnesses; if he had nothing to hide, he would insist on public testimony.

On the contrary...lets get him on national TV under oath...I would love to hear his excuses. Especially regarding his failure to accept Bin laden from Sudan when offered.

If anything, the commission has really only found two significant new "smoking guns." The first is when Janet Reno admitted that she never once mentioned Al-qaida or Bin laden to the incoming Attorney General and the second was when it was revealed that the main reason the CIA, FBI, etc did not share info was due to the policy put in place by one of the 911 commission members that actually worked for Reno. Seems she should have stepped down from the commission and testified, but of course, failed to reveal her policy letter until she was exposed.

LOL Good one!

[feign] I'm appalled! Clinton won't testify under oath in public. [/feign]
(this does somehow seem familar. . .cough-conda-liza-cough)

This 9/11 commision is a complete JOKE. Clearly it has lost its focus of finding facts, and has turned into nothing more than a political Witch-hunt.

Hmm, you guys are so quick to forget that the taliban also made a similar offer to turn over osama to the bush administration that they also rejected.

Sure there were lots of strings attached to each offer and each one was in response to both overt and covert threats that the US was making to those countries at the time the offer was made.

If we are going to criticise the clinton administration for rejecting the offer as a strategic move and not genuine then it looks like bush's administration suffers from exactly the same failure. Then again by the time the bush administration was made the offer to turn over osama it was after 9/11 so its easy to argue that their rejection of the offer was an even greater failure than clintons.

"the taliban also made a similar offer to turn over osama to the bush administration"

What's this?

I seem to remember the leader of the Taliban refusing to even consider turning over his "son in law." Please enlighten us.

You guys don't keep up with the news much, do ya.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/01/ret.us.taliban/index.html

Well, at least its yet another example that bush's steadfast approach of war over diplomacy and negotiation is consistantly bad at generating its intended results.

If you look at the details of the sudanese offer it was very similar. The clinton administration was not going to turn over intelligence and negotiate with sudan either.

Well if you continued to keep up with the news... you would have discovered that after initially resisting providing evidence, we later did and they did not turn over Bin Laden. It was only asked for as a stalling technique.

We also know that the Clinton administration reported that they had previously provided proof to the Taliban leadership of Bin Laden's involvement in two earlier bombings.

Yeah, uhmmm, HP . . .those are not similar offers.

One was a bit(understatement) more legit than the plea of "oh, hey wait. . .don't kick our talibanian-asses out a here yet . ..uhmm . . ah. . we can get you binladen. . .yeah, that's it. . . you wait right here . .. we'll be right back . .promise"

I guess the biggest difference is that clinton did'nt kill tens of thousands of people to end up empty handed. The end results look pretty similar to me though.

I guess you all can keep pointing at clinton if it makes you feel better about bush's dismal performance though.

Concidering that clinton is just a private citizen now and bush is not yet I think its more important to be concerned about how the guy that is currently running the show is performing than presidents of the past.

If you want to keep looking backwards it be a bit more pertinant to look back at the republicans that had the bright idea of giving islamic extremists billions of dollars and arms to fight the commies and other infidels with.

If those people had the wisdom to let the russians go bankrupt on their own the world would be a lot more peaceful place nowadays.

Looks like it worked well. Better fighting terrorists with sticks and conventional weapons than the Soviets with nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately a whole series of Democratic presidents tried that without success. Repeating a failure over and over expecting different results is usually defined as insanity....or liberalism.

I finished reading Clarke`s book, and I am convinced more than ever that the invasion of Iraq was totally counterproductive in the war on terror. In a nutshell, some of the points he makes are the folowing:

#1- Attacking the terrorsists in their home does not prevent them from attacking us in our homeland.

#2- Not enough ressources were dedicated to Afghanistan, the Taliban and Bin Laden are still running, and the country`s instability will foster more terrorism.

#3- Pakistan poses a far greater problem than Iraq, because they have nukes and this is where Al Quaeda is hiding.

#4- The war on terror will never be efficient if it does not include a war on ideology, and replacing the madrassas by a more tolerant school system. If this is not done, new generations of terrorists will be prepared constantly.

I assume all the posters on this thread have read the book. Right ? How would it be possible to have an opinion on someone without reading what he has to say ? Well, at the exception of Sean Hannity, of course. I do not need to read his book to have an opinion on him...hearing his delirium on the radio every day is well enough. ;)

Aurel

1. Since the hearings have already proven that he colors the truth so much through either ignorance or malice, why would we spend a penny on his book?
2. And since his ideas presented to four different administrations over a 10 year period didn't do squat to stop terrorism...why would we consider his opinion of any value?
3. Item #4...Are you advocating we attack, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan, France, and Lebanon to force them to institute our school system?

Fint, I think you need to use the following image for your avitar.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

So, Fint, you are voicing an educated opinion after reading the book, of course...

Aurel