Beg to differ Mr. Blanchard,

You originally described Clarke's role and position through several administrations as being, "at the top of the US anti-terrorism policy chain", for some reason you have now found it convenient to demote Mr. Clarke to being someone who, "resided at the top levels of the policy chain" - there is a marked difference in the two statements, I responded, as requested, to your first job description for Mr. Clarke, which was incorrect.

Under Clinton the person at the top was Berger, his immediate subordinate on security matters was George Tenet. Currently it is Rice, her immediate subordinate on security matters is George Tenet.

If Richard Clarke, did not attend "principals" meetings, and was not copied on the minutes of those meetings, he is in no great position to comment on their content.

Procedural weaknesses and failings happen, inter-departmental and intra-organisational rivalries occur. With the former those weaknesses only ever become evident once the procedure has been tested and been seen to clearly fail - nobody's fault, nobody can structure something to accommodate every single contingency, IMO, in this particular case increased work-load also contributed, particularly with regard to evaluation and co-ordination of the information held. The fact that a procedure may prove to be faulty does not mean that those implementing it are in any way incompetent, or are personally at fault, so in such an instance who would you suggest should be fired/prosecuted/made to pay and for what?

With regard to my introduction of the Patriot Act into the discussion. I believe you did ask if I thought responsible leadership had been demonstrated in the wake of the attacks of 9/11. That I did and marked out two factors that improve the capability of US intelligence and law enforcement agencies to combat the threat. Widespread reaction, within this particular forum, against the provisions of the Patriot Act are fairly well known - I was not attempting to put words into your mouth, if I had been doing that the word "all", would not have appeared after the "you".

The principles upon which your country was founded are not being "surrendered", far from it, they are being protected. Post-9/11, things changed dramatically for the USA, unfortunately there appears to be a number of Americans who, for some obscure reason, refuse to realise, or accept that that change has occurred.

Your enemy, declared war on you at least six years ago, their demands are your destruction. Believe if you may that, "there must be a middle way", with respect to the demands of groups such as Al-Qaeda there isn't, they deal only in absolutes, acknowledge that, or pay their price, it's simple. I'll go along with Mr. Clarke - Identify them and hit them, before they hit you.