I don't think it's unreasonable to have doubts about Mr. Clarke. I also agree with you Pat that it makes sense to put some of the burden on the Clinton administration as well. I think what we're looking at here is a rather large failure by a great number of people and that's really how I take the words I posted by Mr. Clarke. He actually came forward under oath and acknowledged that failure and apologized for it. Nobody else has done that.

I really don't have any respect for the Clinton or Bush administrations. I don't want to side with either one. The way Ms. Rice is avoiding giving public testimony to me is shameful and consistent with the way these people operate. I'm sick and tired of having this kind of finger pointing "it wasn't me" shitheads running our country. We've been dealing with that for way too long. The Clinton administration, Bush the 1st, Reagan...they have all been duck and cover and blame somebody else types. With Bushco they always point the finger and try to destroy the accusers' credibility.

This is what I mean when I say to you guys we should be on the same side. You're right when you say 9/11 has been used for political gain. The thing is though at least I respect the fact that Clarke said "I failed you." He shouldered the blame. He carried his weight and admitted he let us down too. Rice won't even get her ass out there and testify. Why? She's not above the people...she answers to us. It bothers the hell out of me that these people seem to forget that. If they call Bush the 1st, Clinton, Bush the 2nd...they better get their ass up there and testify. We elected them and if I were Ms. Rice's boss, meaning if I were Bush, I'd be telling her to get out there and testify or get another job...you're all done. If there's nothing to hide don't hide.

This commission is supposedly trying to examine 9/11 to help prevent this kind of failure in future. Anyone that is called and has an interest in doing just that should show up and give testimony. I take it Rice could care less and feels it's more important to spend her time digging for ways to take shots at Clarke. That's disgusting.

I know you guys are reasonable and I have just one question to ask you Marc and Pat...

Do you really think Mr. Clarke would lie under oath just to sell books and to take down Bush?

Consider a couple of things here before you answer that:

1. The White House dug out those comments from 2002 and released them. If what I read about them was correct Mr. Clarke's name was originally not suppposed to used in connection with those comments but the White House changed the status of those remarks so that they could use them against Clarke. Also if I'm not mistaken those comments were standard press briefing "Rah rah rah, we're doing a good job" stuff and I believe that is how Clarke explained them.

2. Consider Clarke's other remarks under oath;

"I have 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. I worked for Ronald Reagan with you (refering to John Lehman). I worked for the first President Bush. And he nominated me to the Senate as an assistant secratary of state, and I worked in his White House, and I've worked for this President Bush. And I'm not working for Senator Kerry...Let me say here, as I am under oath, that I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration, should there be one."

Now do you think this guy is going to say all this and point out he's under oath while saying it just to sell his book? It would make him quite an ass if he did and he would have done this under oath in front of the entire country.

I don't think his story has changed much over the course and that story you posted Marc, from Time, pretty much only points out minor things like in one version he mentions Bush shaking his finger in his face and other versions...like what's in the book...are more tame. Yes, he may have made some statements of things he thought Bush may have been thinking but not while he was under oath. Those were comments on 60 Minutes. All of this seems to add up to a frantic response from the Bush administration to try to shoot down Clarke.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong to have doubts but I just don't think this looks good from the Bush side.