The Principals Committee had its first meeting on al Qaeda on September 4. On the day of the meeting, Clarke sent Rice an impassioned personal note. He criticized U.S. counterterrorism efforts past and present. The "real question" before the principals, he wrote, was "are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat? Is al Qida a big deal? Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qida attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the US," Clarke wrote. "What would those decision makers wish that they had done earlier? That future day could happen at any time." Clarke then turned to the Cole." The fact that the USS Cole was attacked during the last Administration does not absolve us of responding for the attack," he wrote. "Many in al Qida and the Taliban may have drawn the wrong lesson from the Cole: that they can kill Americans without there being a US response, without there being a price."

Question: "Who did Clarke criticized when he sent Rice an impassioned personal note?"

Answer: "U.S. counterterrorism efforts past and present"

Response: yes

It's just this hard when I try to answer the question: Why do older Oklahomans need lawyers? The answers are important enough that they will be a discussion topic of this year's Senior Day at 9 a.m. March 25 in the House Chamber at the Capitol. The following is a preview of some of the answers for review: We can all agree that older Oklahomans need medical care. But even the best care is worthless if an older patient can't drive to the doctor for ongoing treatment because his or her car has been wrongfully seized in a debt dispute. Therefore, lawyers are part of the prescription for regular medical care for many of the 600,000 Oklahomans age 60 and older. Another example: if a doctor treats an elderly patient for a lung ailment, the doctor's treatment will be undone and he will see the patient again and again, if the patient is sent home to an unheated apartment. Lawyers know how to make landlords heat apartments so the medical treatment can stick. (By the way, a May 16, 2001, article in The New York Times reports on a program at Boston Medical Center providing a walk-in legal clinic in the hospital to help fight their patients' legal and administrative battles.) We also can agree that older Oklahomans - like all citizens - have rights to control their health care until they become incapacitated or these rights are transferred to another by legal document or process. "Old" is not a legal classification that results in automatic loss of these rights. Moreover, having an old parent does not automatically confer on children the right to make the parents' health care choices. It follows that an important role lawyers provide for aging Oklahomans is not only to create rights - transferring documents such as durable powers of attorney and guardianship orders, but also to monitor their use. In family situations, for example, lawyers must ensure that powers of attorney and guardianships are used to serve only the person transferring or losing rights. They are not to be used to help a family "manage" their mother or help a doctor or nursing home get permission for a pill or procedure they feel is in the best interest of a patient. Good news: Oklahoma now has a Public Guardianship Program, albeit unfunded, that will supply lawyers to perform this rights-monitoring process Oklahoma grandparents should be able to enjoy their grandchildren, not raise them. But owing to the social problems of divorce and drug use, grandparents are increasingly being called on to raise their grandchildren because of missing parents. Adding to the physical, emotional and financial burden they take on, grandparents face legal problems. All the decisions parents made without a second thought now require evidence of legal authority when made by grandparents.

Question: "Why are lawyers part of the prescription for regular medical care for many of the 600,000 Oklahomans age 60 and older?"

Answer: "Because they start to be imobile"

Response: yes

Iwasaki's careful respect for the Long Beach program and its lawyers earned him the political capital he needed to complete his takeover in a matter of weeks. "The Long Beach program had strong support in the community so in a situation like that, one has to recognize that it's not like a takeover where I have all the answers and I know best," Iwasaki said. "The people in the community who are working there have the contacts and the knowledge that will allow service to continue." Things have gone less smoothly across town. There, Dudovitz, a longtime poverty lawyer and executive director of the San Fernando Valley's 36-year-old legal aid program, continues to struggle with his hostile takeover of the neighboring San Gabriel-Pomona Valleys service area one year after it was accomplished. On the bright side, Dudovitz has extended his respected program to clients in the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley, and he now operates on a much larger budget, $6.5 million last year. However, his clash with the old San Gabriel program resulted in litigation, bitter feelings and a mission that some say is not clearly focused on serving poor people. "It was a difficult situation that was probably mishandled by everyone," a longtime observer of the public interest community said of the San Fernando Valley-San Gabriel-Pomona Valley merger. "There are very few people who come out as the heroes. Personalities got involved when they shouldn't have. Things were said that caused bad feelings and couldn't be unsaid." Iwasaki's merger with the smaller, 48-year-old Long Beach program was friendly and fast, and no one - not even Long Beach board members - lost a job. When it was over, Iwasaki had $1 million more in federal dollars and two new offices. Long Beach clients regained services they had lost years ago when federal budget cuts and dwindling grants reduced the staff of 15 lawyers to five and cut immigration and consumer law programs. Iwasaki said, "[I judged the transition] better than I could have hoped for."

Question: "In the eyes of the public interest community, was Dudovitz's hostile takeover well-handled?"

Answer: "Smooth"

Response:
no