The Candidate: If he doesn't take on 9/11, do you care?

[JackRiddler]

Sure, everyone's ABB, but what does that mean? Are you willing to let the Bush accomplishments of perpetual war and repression stand unchallenged and unchanged? Are you willing to let the Bush regime escape with murder?

9/11 is not history. It was the lever with which the world itself was shifted, and continues to be moved. It was casus belli for two wars and pretext for a new police state, including the USA PATRIOT Act. It has transformed our society, our economy and the federal budget. And to this day, it remains untouched by a credible investigation, despite the outcry and demands of the victims themselves.

Yesterday's historic statement of the 9/11 families, on the questions Bush and the Kean Commission have failed to answer, should have been the big headline worldwide. The Bush regime from the beginning has obstructed the investigations in many ways and in absolutely farcical ways (just think: Kissinger), to the point where the Kean Commission was about to subpeona... its own notes, which the White House had classified.

Remember Max Cleland's resignation from the 9/11 Commission? He said "Bush is scamming America," "this government knew more about these terrorists than they have revealed," "I don't want to make the mistakes of the Warren Commission." Then he was given a new job by Bush and he went silent. He also showed up alongside Kerry, but no longer addressed the 9/11 issue.

In thread after thread and internal poll after poll, DU members express support for the well-grounded theory that the Bush regime allowed the attacks to happen for its own gain and as a means of transforming the world, and that our government's covert operators and their friends had a hand in actually orchestrating the attacks. (For those of you who need an introduction, I will provide links galore later in this thread.)

Kucinich once called for an investigation but has been conspicuously silent on this issue, unlike some of his supporters. Dean mentioned it briefly in his "interesting theory" remarks, but did not defend himself vigorously enough when he was attacked for it by right-wingers and Kerry. Nevertheless, this was no doubt one of the signals that he was too unpredictable for the powers-that-be - alongside his comment that he would break up the media cartels.

Given all that, given 3,000 dead in my hometown, given the spectacle of a color-coded coordination of our fear by a bunch of gangsters, given all the death and destruction that the Bush regime has only been able to wreak thanks to 9/11, given their endless criminal pedigree, I cannot take seriously any candidate who does not address 9/11; who, like Kerry, in fact ridicules others who address 9/11, even though he has Max Cleland on his campaign team.

The demand for 9/11 truth disclosure is a central issue; I will not compromise, I will accept no candidate who does not stand with the Family Steering Committee, with full truth disclosure and the idea of a full, truly independent investigation with subpeona power and testimony under oath. I cannot accept a candidate who risks legitimating Bush (if he wins) without ever having called the regime out for its fascism and big lie politics. And I will not accept any candidate supporters' assurances that this issue will be treated one day when it's safe to tread upon it. Speak clearly before the election, or I can never trust you or support you.

911truth.org

[xxqqqzme]

1. the dem candidate

should take up this cause and help the 9/11 families get the answers they deserve. squatter is vulnerable here. Why has no one touched this?

[RafterMan]

2. Wrong question

The Bush actions after 9/11 do not logically follow from the Bush story about 9/11.

It's my hometown, too, and I feel strongly that *this* is the message that needs to be sent. Anything else is gravy.

[gandalf]

3. Very clear, honest and courageous position

The problem that I see, watching your "elections" from Germany, is that you probably cannot support anyone of the candidates, because (with the exception of Kucinich, perhaps) no candidate will aggressively demand the truth -- if nothing changes. If a lot more people had the same opinion as you, than perhaps one candidate would address the issue. But Kerry....

It could mean that you are not going to vote at all?

Did you read the analysis on from the wilderness? Ruppert supports, regarding 9/11, the same position as you. He suggests that a kind of mole is doing sabotage to the Kucinich campaign...

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. We HAD a candidate who

had already stated that 911 would be thoroughly investigated and the Bush cabal would be held accountable for doing nothing to prevent it....who was that candidate? WESLEY CLARK! Yep, the ONE candidate who would have opened the 911 investigation report AND said he would investigate this regime on the lies of WMD and the Iraq war....is not in the race any more. Wes was the guy to do it. He said it-he meant it. I have not heard any other candidate say a word about it. :shrug:

[JackRiddler]

5. This is no longer the point, perhaps...

I don't really believe Clark was for real about this but maybe you are right. Certainly I am unhappy with the way Dean raised and then dropped this issue.

Regardless: one's out and endorsing Kerry and no longer talking about 9/11. The other one's almost out and will endorse someone too.

I want to know who's going to demand truth NOW. Or how we can force the presumptive nominee to do so.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Wes is on vacation.

When he returns....STAY TUNED! I think he plans on traveling around the country and is going to speak on behalf of the Kerry Campaign. If he doesn't talk about 911 and the WMD/Iraq war/LIES...I will be very surprised. THAT was a HUGE issue for his campaign. Listen to him when he returns. As far as the OTHER candidates, I've not heard anyone else speak out about it which is a SHAME. It should be a MAJOR issue.

[KittyWampus]

9. Well, Clark WAS The One Exposing Bush & PNAC

much more than even Dennis.

And to say you don't believe Clark was for real... even after he got assasinated by the press makes it hard to repect your post.

Sorry.

Maybe Kerry should start picking up the theme from Clark instead of having Cleland and others doing the heavy lifting.

[JackRiddler]

11. unfortunately

Cleland isn't doing heavy lifting on this anymore, though he stands by what he said when he resigned from the Commission. I'd like to see him get back into it.

I don't want to get into the personalities here. When Clark attacked on this issue, I supported it and did all any of us can do to get the word out to all my contacts.

So let's not fight about that.

[Donna Zen]

33. Why we can't get there from here:

Well_thank you very much for your statement that Clark was no telling the truth.

You were offered a very electable candidate who was telling you the truth, and you chose to call him liar. Now of course the rightwing didn't think he was lying at all. (Goodmorning Shelton, Krystal, Noonan, Safire, and everyone at Faux, GE, and CNN. Special kudos to Novak and Woodruff) Yep, so the right knew Clark was telling the truth, and the left, who would have gained from Clark's speaking up, calls him a liar.

I would suggest that the next time someone is willing to put their gravitas on the line for the left, they would do better to just keep their seat and shut up. The only people listening are from the dynastic BFEE, and they hate you anyway.

[mgmartin]

8. Open government

Clark expressed in his campaign for a completly open and accountable government. Have any of the other candidates expressed their view on this issue?

[PATRICK]

7. Sliding away from many harsh issues

BBV not even mentioned by party stalwarts. Ashcroft in general but not the patriot Act the party voted for. Deficits and jobs, not corporate welfare and influence peddling more massive than Teapot Dome.

If they are expecting to slide in first then do something about these things they actually helped bury or ignore at times I would love to be reassured.

Take BBV. We have officials writing in and saying how they are working to resolve all the issues. When exactly? This is exactly like Gore in Florida 2000 on "mute". Occasionally a few voices rise up on some points but the cognitive dissonance is so unassailable that all others seem passively complicit or downright ignorant of the plain facts.

Fraud has taken the WH and fraud will taint any attempt to carry on myths and "heal" the nation by burying truth and letting the responsible off the hook yet again. This is the worst example I have lived through but it is not atypical. The only thing missing is any deference to the wisdom or tactics of the party. They'll have to prove they have legitimacy by getting the truth out once and for all.

[ChiefJoseph]

10. I think the issue should be dropped.

Criticizing Bush for his performance on the national security front before 9/11 is not a winner for us. If we're going to blame Bush for what he didn't do in the 8 months he was in office before 9/11, we have to be willing to expect far more criticism of Clinton's record, which frankly leaves much to be desired on the terrorism front.

[JackRiddler]

12. No I want to criticize the regime as a whole for what they did do

- Declare allegiance to a plan for world domination involving serial invasions of Iraq and other countries - a plan they say was possible only with a "New Pearl Harbor."

- Negotiate with the Taliban, give them aid and at the same time threaten them with bombing.

- Prepare a war plan for Afghanistan. Deploy troops.

- Prepare a war plan for Iraq. Study its oil fields. (Cheney "energy talks.")

- Warn everyone that terror is coming, that it is the main defense issue.

- Become aware of supposed warnings of an imminent attack. Do nothing.

- Announce on Sept. 10 that the Pentagon is missing 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets.

- Do nothing on the day. Let it happen.

- Know exactly who helped, who knew, and let them get away: Mahmud Ahmad, the Bin Laden brothers, the insider traders.

- Promote all the officials who were responsible for the "failures": Myers, Eberhard, Sliney, Frasca.

- Stonewall all investigations. Fire whistleblowers.

The Bush mob are guilty of a lot more than "failure."

They wanted 9/11 to happen, they saw to it that it happened, they have blocked investigation, and when they think the time is right they're going to see to it that it happens again.

Take off your blinders. The Bush regime is guilty.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. nonsense, we can compare Clinton's record to Bush's

and we should. Clinton record on fighting terrorism is damned good - compared to any other president in modern history. In fact, I think we SHOULD be mentioning that while Clinton was attacking the Taliban camps in Afghanistan, the GOP were impeachning him over Monica Lewinsky. We should bring up Gore's anti-terrorism commission and how Bush disbanded it and disregarded their proposals. We should bring up the fact that Bush has been in business with the Binladens and stifled the investigation into their terrorist financing.

Compare Clinton's record to Bush's? Absolutely.

[robertpaulsen]

24. If you doubt Clinton's record on terrorism...

just read Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". He wrote a whole chapter disproving the notion that Clinton was somehow weak on terrorism.

[JackRiddler]

14. article: why isn't this in the news?

9/11 families throw down gauntlet, attack 9/11 coverup

Relatives challenge White House to provide answers to 23 questions
9/11 Family Steering Committee demands Bush testify under oath


By Nicholas Levis
www.911truth.org
<[e-mail]>

Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2004. New York City.



"Mr. Bush, who approved the flight of the bin Laden family out of the United States, when all commercial flights were grounded?"

That is one of 23 explosive questions that George W. Bush and his subordinates will have to face in public testimony, under oath and pain of perjury - that is, if the relatives of people killed in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 get their way.

"Why has no one in any level of our government been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to and on 9/11?"

For more than a year, the Family Steering Commitee - a group of thirteen "9/11 relatives" representing several other 9/11 family groups - has monitored the government's commission on Sept. 11, which is headed by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean. FSC member Mindy Kleinberg was among the first to testify when the Kean Commission held its first proceedings. She alerted the panel to a number of disturbing and unanswered questions and contradictions in the government's explanation of what happened on Sept. 11.

(For a transcript of Kleinberg's comments, see
www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm)

Almost none of the issues raised by Kleinberg were ever again brought up in the Kean Commision's public hearings.

The Family Steering Committee issued their challenge to Bush on Monday, following reports last week that the Kean Commission had asked George W. Bush and Bill Clinton to testify. The White House says Bush is considering an appearance before the Kean Commission, but only in secret session. And if he does appear, it is unlikely Bush will face questions like those on the Family Steering Committee's list: "Please explain why you remained at the Sarasota, Florida, Elementary School for a press conference after you had finished listening to the children read, when as a terrorist target, your presence potentially jeopardized the lives of the children?"

(Mr. Bush, his staff and his Secret Service entourage were indeed in that school, as carried on live television, until 9:32 a.m. on Sept. 11, 45 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, and 27 minutes after the moment when Bush was informed of the second plane crash and told "America is under attack," at 9:05 a.m., an anomaly that the White House has never explained.)

In recent weeks, the family members have released a series of harshly-worded statements, blasting the Bush administration for stonewalling the investigation - and also condemning the Kean Commission for refusing to examine key evidence. These statements have been published at the FSC's website at www.911independentcommission.org.

In its public hearings the Kean Commission has indeed displayed reluctance to pursue controversial lines of inquiry. It is hard to imagine its members would ever ask if the U.S. government tried to cut a deal with Osama Bin Laden in advance of the attacks, as reported in the European press already in 2001. But the families want the answer: "Did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda?" ("UBL" is government speak for Osama Bin Laden.)

Nor has the Kean Commission shown any inclination to follow the trail of the Cheney "energy policy meetings" in early 2001 and the Bush administration's oil-pipeline negotiations with the Taliban up to July 2001 - a touchy subject that might come up if the government ever had to answer this question: "During that same period, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with any foreign government, its agents, or officials regarding UBL?"

And it is simply inconceivable that the Kean Commission would ever wonder out loud if anyone other than Al-Qaeda benefitted from the attacks. But the families are not afraid of the obvious: "Which individuals, governments, agencies, institutions, or groups may have benefited from the attacks of 9/11?"

Although the Kean Commission accepted a deal strictly limiting its access to the White House documents detailing advance warnings of a possible terror attack, Governor Kean last week felt confident enough to claim there was "no smoking gun" to indicate Bush had specific advance knowledge of the attacks - at least not in the "parts of the documents" Kean had been allowed to see.

The families don't buy that on faith or partial evidence. They want to know the real answer: "As Commander-in-Chief, from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you receive any information from any intelligence agency official or agent that UBL was planning to attack this nation on its own soil using airplanes as weapons, targeting New York City landmarks during the week of September 11, 2001 or on the actual day of September 11, 2001?"

Meticulously researched, the FSC's questions to Bush reflect many of the same concerns that have caused millions of people worldwide to doubt everything about the official story of Sept. 11, 2001, and to call for a truly independent investigation with subpeona power, testimony under oath, and no self-imposed restrictions as to "allowable" lines of inquiry.

It is hard to dismiss these concerns as "conspiracy theory" when the U.S. government itself used the most outrageous conspiracy theory of all - the lie that Saddam backed the attacks - as one of its pretexts to invade Iraq. In that matter as well, the families want to see the government held accountable: "Do you continue to maintain that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaeda?" they ask. "What proof do you have of any connection between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime?"

These questions indicate that the families have come to understand that, as great as their grief and tragedy was, the stakes in the 9/11 disclosure issue are far greater, and involve more than justice for the victims and well-deserved closure for the families. 9/11 was used as a lever to shift the world. All Americans - and, given the global impact, the people of the whole world - need to learn the answers that the families now demand.

Family Steering Committee at www.911independentcommission.org

[Donna Zen]

34. Why does this not make the news?

A better question: what news?

[rhite5]

15. The Danger

There is the possibility that reopening 9/11 is too dangerous for the country. The election could be cancelled and Martial Law invoked. I suspect this explains why they are not touching it.

[JackRiddler]

19. So there we go...

The entire country is being held hostage by terrorists. And we are not even allowed to say so, lest they kill more of the hostages. So everyone who knows this must nevertheless continue to pretend...

Until what? Until there is never again a hope of reversing this course? Until the totalitarian fabric is complete, and lives in all our hearts? Until we love Big Brother?

[mot78]

16. They better not be LIHOP/MIHOP

Otherwise their candidacy will make Mondale and McGovern look electable.

[BeFree]

18. I have to agree

As much as I want to have the TRUTH see the light of day, I won't pin my hopes on a front-running democrat. It's just too damned touchy to go against what probably 70% of the people think. (The 70% being those who believe 19 cavemen fooled the FBI and the CIA, et al.)

Saw a pundit tonite say that the beginning of the end for Dean was when Dean said that * knew. When I heard Dean say that I'm sure my neighbors thought "What the hell was that hootin' & hollerin' about!" But I fear the pundit is right -- it ain't time for a front-runner to do that.

Someone above said too just wait for Clark to speak out. That would be politiclly smart -- let someone who isn't running take the heat for calling * out on 9/11. Who better than a General to do so?

Also, if we get at least a bit of TRUTH from the 9/11 commission, just before November, it will in effect grease the wheel for JK/whomever to ride it to the max.

Otherwise, I'm with ya all the way, Jack.

[Donna Zen]

35. Mandate

Clark's now using a forum provided to him by Kerry. He will stick to the issue of the failed Iraq strategy conceived by Rummy etal, and the deterioration of international relations. The Dem. have taken away his right to totally speak the truth. Remember...

[JackRiddler]

17. preliminary results

60% of those who have voted here want to take on 9/11.

THE QUESTIONS OF THE FAMILIES - FSC RELEASE FOLLOWS:

The Family Steering Committee Statement and Questions Regarding the 9/11 Commission Interview with President Bush

February 16, 2004

The Family Steering Committee believes that President Bush should provide sworn public testimony to the full ten-member panel of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Collectively, the Commissioners are responsible for fulfilling the Congressional mandate. Therefore, each Commissioner must have full access to the testimony of all individuals and the critical information that will enable informed decisions and recommendations. Before an audience of the American people, the Commission must ask President Bush in sworn testimony, the following questions:

1. As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn't you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?

2. On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?

3. What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th? What time were these orders given, and to whom? What orders were carried out? What was the result of such orders? Were any such orders not carried out?

4. In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?

5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the Director of the White House Situation Room, informed you of the first airliner hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Please explain the reason why you decided to continue with the scheduled classroom visit, fifteen minutes after learning the first hijacked airliner had hit the World Trade Center.

6. Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you? If so, please cite any prior examples of when this occurred. If not normal procedure, please explain the circumstances that led to the Director of the White House Situation Room being asked to accompany you to Florida during the week of September 11th.

7. What plan of action caused you to remain seated after Andrew Card informed you that a second airliner had hit the second tower of the World Trade Center and America was clearly under attack? Approximately how long did you remain in the classroom after Card's message?

8. At what time were you made aware that other planes were hijacked in addition to Flight 11 and Flight 175? Who notified you? What was your course of action as Commander-in-Chief of the United States?

9. Beginning with the transition period between the Clinton administration and your own, and ending on 9/11/01, specifically what information (either verbal or written) about terrorists, possible attacks and targets, did you receive from any source?

This would include briefings or communications from:

* Out-going Clinton officials
* CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD and other intelligence agencies
* Foreign intelligence, governments, dignitaries or envoys
* National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
* Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar

10. Specifically, what did you learn from the August 6, 2001, PDB about the terrorist threat that was facing our nation? Did you request any follow-up action to take place? Did you request any further report be developed and/or prepared?

11. As Commander-in-Chief, from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you receive any information from any intelligence agency official or agent that UBL was planning to attack this nation on its own soil using airplanes as weapons, targeting New York City landmarks during the week of September 11, 2001 or on the actual day of September 11, 2001?

12. What defensive measures did you take in response to pre-9/11 warnings from eleven nations about a terrorist attack, many of which cited an attack in the continental United States? Did you prepare any directives in response to these actions? If so, with what results?

13. As Commander-in-Chief from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda? During that same period, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with any foreign government, its agents, or officials regarding UBL? If so, what resulted?

14. Your schedule for September 11, 2001 was in the public domain since September 7, 2001. The Emma E. Booker School is only five miles from the Bradenton Airport, so you, and therefore the children in the classroom, might have been a target for the terrorists on 9/11. What was the intention of the Secret Service in allowing you to remain in the Emma E. Booker Elementary School, even though they were aware America was under attack?

15. Please explain why you remained at the Sarasota, Florida, Elementary School for a press conference after you had finished listening to the children read, when as a terrorist target, your presence potentially jeopardized the lives of the children?

16. What was the purpose of the several stops of Air Force One on September 11th? Was Air Force One at any time during the day of September 11th a target of the terrorists? Was Air Force One's code ever breached on September 11th?

17. Was there a reason for Air Force One lifting off without a military escort, even after ample time had elapsed to allow military jets to arrive?

18. What prompted your refusal to release the information regarding foreign sponsorship of the terrorists, as illustrated in the inaccessible 28 redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report? What actions have you personally taken since 9/11 to thwart foreign sponsorship of terrorism?

19. Who approved the flight of the bin Laden family out of the United States when all commercial flights were grounded, when there was time for only minimal questioning by the FBI, and especially, when two of those same individuals had links to WAMY, a charity suspected of funding terrorism? Why were bin Laden family members granted that special privilege � a privilege not available to American families whose loved ones were killed on 9/11?

20. Please explain why no one in any level of our government has yet been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to and on 9/11?

21. Please comment on the fact that UBL's profile on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives poster does not include the 9/11 attacks. To your knowledge, when was the last time any agent of our government had contact with UBL? If prior to 9/11, specifically what was the date of that contact and what was the context of said meeting.

22. Do you continue to maintain that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda? What proof do you have of any connection between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime?

23. Which individuals, governments, agencies, institutions, or groups may have benefited from the attacks of 9/11? Please state specifically how you think they have benefited.

The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission

http://www.911independentcommission.org/

[Moderator]

32. JackRiddler

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news
source.


Thank you


DU Moderator

[JackRiddler]

20. Sixty-two percent (47 out of 76)

Well, is that indicative of what people here really think? Come on, I have a clear opinion but I think the questions in the poll itself are fair. If you don't agree, vote against. For the moment, the majority seems to be saying:

ANYONE WHO DOESN'T TAKE ON THE 9/11 COVERUP IS A FRAUD

[JackRiddler]

21. kick

[JackRiddler]

22. I am the squeaky wheel

and I will not drop this

[mmonk]

23. The truth will set us free

[JackRiddler]

25. will you look at that...

it keeps dropping off the front board, but every time it appears more people vote for Option 1. Fancy that.

[JackRiddler]

26. Okay, so I'm the wacko in the sandwich board

Remember Sept. 11th!

[Leilani]

27. Sorry

We had the perfect candidate who was trying to expose all the ugly truths about this administration. Someone who knew, more from the inside about what really happened. And someone who had the perfect credentials to do this.

But he was smeared as a whacko from both the right & the left.

Too Bad, So Sad!

[JackRiddler]

28. please...

though I don't believe that... can't you get him to speak NOW?

Why'd he just go and endorse Kerry on the same day he quit?

And what was that with his campaign manager backstabbing him before he even quit?

Didn't we see the same routine with Dean?

The experienced political operators apparently admire this kind of behavior (a la if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen).

Then they smile at us and talk about pragmatic democracy!

Dean was knocked for being honest (i.e., attacking where it was merited). But did he resort to dirty tricks? Ads comparing his opponents to Osama? 39,000 renditions of the (non-)Scream?

I will have a hard time ever liking Clark, but something similar may have been done to him, as you suggest. (I think if you look closely though, he was meant to either pick up Kerry's slack or endorse him, from the beginning. Just my reading of it, sorry. This is not a knock on his supporters.)

[JackRiddler]

29. 2 days later kick

[robbedvoter]

30. 9.11 - key to a win - W getting crowned at Ground Zero. Clark is speaking

All throughout the campaign Clark brought out W's accountability for 9.11 - the fact that he failed his dutoes to protesct us before and after (the Iraq distraction).
He will continue to speak out - and no Dem can win against W without debating this - because Bushco sell us that somehow, 9.11 was some kind of accomplishment for them. Edwards agrees, which is why media anoints him now.

[JackRiddler]

31. wot the hell naked shamelessness kick #9

[Donna Zen]

36. Operation ignore:

The above poster is correct that Franken laid out the case in his chapter "Operation ignore." Clark said the same thing for months. You do not need LHOP or any other difficult to understand proposition to explain to the American people. Bush was AWOL regarding the nation's security from Jan. 20, 01 until 911; furthermore, bush is still AWOL on the nation's security. Ask Warren Rudman, ask Paul O'Neill, or ask Wesley Clark.

Clark made this an issue about dereliction of duty, simple. The Democrats call him a liar, a phony, a PNAC plant, so now they have no one willing with the credentials to make it stick, speaking up and out.

I believe Samantha Powers speaking about Clark said: A leader is someone who stands up for what is right when no one else is standing up.

Sorry you missed your chance to support a leader.

[diamondsoul]

37. Except that this "leader"-

and by the way I happen to agree that Wesley Clark is a first rate leader, is now supporting someone who utterly FAILED to lead anything on the 9/11 and Iraq situations.

[JackRiddler]

38. Clark only justifying official story with incompetence

9/11 was not an intelligence failure. It was an intelligence success.

The failures were meant to fail that way.

Was Clark willing to even examine the possibility that the explanation for 9/11 is outside the failure paradigm?