guest from NW,

"...but i think you must acknowledge that his credentials and position at the top of the US anti-terrorism policy chain for several years and several administrations afford him a particularly unique viewpoint on the whole issue."

I think I would acknowledge that if indeed his position had been as you describe above, but it wasn't. Richard Clarke was a Presidential Advisor on anti-terrorism, he did not head anything. Others also had extremely informed viewpoints on the issue, George Tenet and Samuel Berger in particular, they were actually in charge, but as they both disagree with Richard Clarke's up-take on the situation, their credentials, positions and insight are apparently totally dismissed.

Didn't pay attention to THEM, or to Clarke? I do not think that was case in any shape or form. Incidently, out of those "principals" meetings you mentioned, how many did Clarke attend?

I believe from what, Clarke, Tenet and Berger have said in evidence, "whatever chance there may have been to prevent 9/11 was lost", due to existing faults in procedure relating to exchange of information and analysis of information, within the domestic and international intelligence agencies of the United States of America.

To answer your questions:

"Wouldn't you say that after a disaster of this magnitude it's kind of strange that not a single official in the chains of command has been fired, demoted, or resigned? does that seem like responsible leadership is in control?"

No, I do not find it strange, because in the final analysis it will be apparent that no particular individual was at fault. The standard operating procedures were adhered to, the procedures proved to be faulty and inadequate. In such a situation it would be extremely irresponsible to "Byng" the issue. Byng was an Admiral in the Royal Navy who was court-martialled and executed on the quarter-deck of his own flag-ship. His offence was supposedly that he had not engaged the enemy vigorously enough in the minds of their Lordships of the Admiralty. He was supposedly found guilty and shot in order to encourage the others to try harder in future - all it suceeded in achieving was that the Royal Navy lost a competent and capable commander in time of war for no real reason or gain.

Subsequent to the attacks of 9/11. Procedures were re-thought and amended where necessary, exchange of information and evaluation of that intelligence was improved greatly, means of acquiring intelligence was improved**, powers of arrest and detention were improved and streamlined**, co-operation with intelligence, customs, immigration and law enforcement agencies throughout the world was improved. Those were the measures taken that reflected responsible leadership by those in control, including Rice, Tenet and Clarke.

The items above marked ** reflect improvements introduced by way of the Patriot Act - which you all rave so much about. Clarke's input - It is imperative to identify and hit them before they hit you - he's quite right of course, as the only defence you have against any terrorist/bomber with a modicum of training and a good measure of dedication is intelligence, obtained by what ever means necessary. If that happens to be against your principles and too hard to stomach, well so be it - accept the incidents, the fatalities, the casualties, the damage to your infrastructure, economy and way of life and look forward to the prospect that such attacks will only ever increase in number and magnitude.