-
On thing that could come out of this as a criticism: Bush was perhaps ignorant to keep all the Clinton holdovers at the helm of anti-terrorism. He should have cleaned house and appointed his own right away, instead of waiting. Of course that would have been a very difficult task.
Bush was smart to go after a target that he could use as leverage to additional terrorist associated countries - as a message. If the climate would have been right for Korea or Libya or a host of others, perhaps he would have got them as well. If it WAS Bush's personal vendetta than congress Ok’d it. In addition if Sadam had pulled in his egomania and played the political game, there would have been NO justification to proceed without extreme fallout back here. And then one last thing, the alternative to Bush is Kerry. I see a very real resemblance to Clark in that man.
-
Clark wasn't a Clinton holdover he was a Regan holdover, up untill recently he was the darling of the neocons Clinton kept him because he did his job so well.... He is also IMHO a warmongerer and a fearmonger...fits right in with the neocons...he left bush because his pet causes (nonstate terrorism and cyberterrorism) where not a priority. Considering that this is a IT security board Im amazed thjat more of you don't know the details of his history.
-
I was refering also to the entire apparatus in place, they were all holdovers, who ever hired them they were in office during Clintons administration as well, they were hold overs from an 8 year term of Clinton and some, like Clark go as far back as Reagan. Another reason I don't understand the impact of the 9/11 board.
I may not be a Clark expert but I remember his dealings in the past. I remember him refusing to testify, for example, in cases were Clinton was the subject of heated debate, while at the same time making Bush out to be a villian for not testifying on the exact same principle.
