1 Isn't fleeing to iraq exactly what Zarkowi did? ? However his name is spelled ....

2 Wasn't Clarke the Clinton terrorism czar? I'll never forget the first mention I ever saw of the proposal to create the position - a note in Men's Health predicted that if the terrorism czar was as successful as the drug czar, we'd soon have Hammas shooting at our asses from inside our toilets. At least he met somebody's expectations.

3 Well, there you go- Richard Clarke knew this but the Senate could never find any proven link from Saddam to al Qaeda. What ever will we do with these false Senate reports anyway? When Bush II was elected , all that I heard was how bad he was at everything and how Bush II adminsitration would be better. Now that there is trouble, all I hear is how Bush II cannot be wrong because Clinton believed the same thing. Shame on everyone for thinking that after 5 years all of the problems are due to the previous administration.

4 All the problems are due to decades of neglect and at times even complicity, whether knowingly or not. By saying that anyone is shameful for pointing to any previous administration is to admit openly that they are too ready to dismiss past failings. AQ didn't decide on January 20th, 2001 to become a problem.

5 Actually Clark has some credibility. In Ghost Wars, Steve Coll offers evidence of the fact that he was one of the very, very few people of the Bubba-Hitler administration who actually regarded terrorism as a serious threat and tried to do something about it. When he testified before Congress to get money for counterterrorism, they treated him as if he were trying to scam them out of some unaccountable money, because of the "black bag" nature of many of the operations; he told them that he wished he could come back before them in a few years and admit it had all been a waste of money, and that there had been no actual threat, but that he was afraid that was not going to be the case. He was known to be fairly unpartisan and a bureaucratic survivor above all, but when faced with the choice of laying the blame where it belonged, or at the feet of a hated Republican, he took the low road. But, eventually, everything comes out in the wash, and people like him will have to slither forward and admit, grudgingly and haltinlgy, that in fact, Bush is not directly and solely responsible for everything from the Civil War to 9/11. When one must swallow their own words, I doubt if seditious speech tastes as good going in as it did coming out. I hope they choke on it. As I've said before; the only good thing about the possibly collapse of society is that we will be free to round up people like this and burn them alive for betraying us.

6 My only intent was to point out that blaming a person in a previous administration when taking office and then using them as a shield five years later is ironic. There is plenty of criticism for anyone who takes action (whether or not they are Republican or Democratic or Independent). It is the person who causes change that is attacked, vilified, and hated. We all must be brought kicking and screaming into a new future whatever it is.

7 Just so you understand that the shame is in those who continually blame it all on this administration. This forces others to bring up past administrations and policies which led up to it. And then they are accused of "passing the buck" when all they're doing is pointing out the fallacies in their argument. Yes, their are a few who have used it as a "shield". But they are few. There are multitudes more on the other side of the fence. They're just upset because this administration upset the status quo (an imaginary peace) and forced everyone to lay their cards on the table. This war was inevitable. It was only a matter of time and place.