Full Version: Richard Clarke
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Mar 24 2004, 05:23 PM)
I just finished watching Richard Clarke's testimony in front of the 9/11 commission and I found it most interesting and enlightening. I haven't read his book and I don't have any plans to do so at the moment, but I do understand I think where he is coming from. I have been there myself on a lesser scale. Mr. Clarke is a fine man, a loyal American and a true patriot. He has served this nation well over the years. With 20/20 hindsight I must say that both Presidents Clinton and Bush should have listened to him more and heeded his advice. Had they done so, either one, I have no doubt that our discussions here would be much different today, but that's a subject for another thread I think.
Richard Clarke turned out to be right about Al Qaeda and OBL and he tried in his capacity as an advisor to the President to warn us about them, but the urgency of his warnings wasn't heeded and instead decisions were made in the context of the times that existed prior to the tragedy of 9/11. Within the context of the times following that day, it is apparent that his advice was right and he's due an "I told you so". It is unfortunate that it comes at a time when partisanship is running on full. Richard Clarke is an angry man because his job was to try and prevent a 9/11 and he couldn't. He tried like to hell to prevent it, but people wouldn't listen to him. How many times has something like this happened to people here? Your boss makes a decision that you know is wrong, maybe even stupid, but will they listen to you? NOOOooooo... and it ends up biting them on the backside. It's happened to me, lots of times. Sometimes that dumb decision ended up costing someone their job, once it even happened to me.
In our experience, it probably cost some money to the company, in Mr. Clarke's experience, it cost nearly 3,000 people their lives, so darn right he's angry, we're all angry. We (our leaders) screwed up, Bush screwed up, Clinton screwed up, but stuff like that happens in a bureaucracy every day, that's the nature of the beast. The problem now facing us is to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Richard Clarke turned out to be right about Al Qaeda and OBL and he tried in his capacity as an advisor to the President to warn us about them, but the urgency of his warnings wasn't heeded and instead decisions were made in the context of the times that existed prior to the tragedy of 9/11. Within the context of the times following that day, it is apparent that his advice was right and he's due an "I told you so". It is unfortunate that it comes at a time when partisanship is running on full. Richard Clarke is an angry man because his job was to try and prevent a 9/11 and he couldn't. He tried like to hell to prevent it, but people wouldn't listen to him. How many times has something like this happened to people here? Your boss makes a decision that you know is wrong, maybe even stupid, but will they listen to you? NOOOooooo... and it ends up biting them on the backside. It's happened to me, lots of times. Sometimes that dumb decision ended up costing someone their job, once it even happened to me.
In our experience, it probably cost some money to the company, in Mr. Clarke's experience, it cost nearly 3,000 people their lives, so darn right he's angry, we're all angry. We (our leaders) screwed up, Bush screwed up, Clinton screwed up, but stuff like that happens in a bureaucracy every day, that's the nature of the beast. The problem now facing us is to try to make sure it doesn't happen again. QUOTE
I totally agree with your sentiments Aquilla. Well stated.
I don't care whether anyone thinks Richard Clarke is a wise and ethical man who should have been heeded by the Bush Administration or a disgruntled bureaucrat who's trying to hype a book. When he testified before the 9/11 Commission he said something that no one---not a liberal Democrat nor a conservative Republican--has said previously.
Clarke said he was sorry for the intelligence community dropping the ball and apologized to the familes of the 9/11 victims for that failure. His mea culpa and plea for forgiveness came across to me as sincere and from the heart.
There is no weakness and no sin in being man enough to admit failure.
QUOTE(Passion51 Posted: Mar 24 2004 @ 05:32 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 24 2004 @ 02:58 PM)
GW pointing at him in the face and demanding he find a link between 9/11 and Iraq- not getting to the bottom of who did it- but rather, to find a link, no matter how tenuous, so they could justify invading Iraq. Clarke says there are at least 4 witnesses to the conversation, and that there was no ambiguity in the demand- he WILL find some link, or else.
For someone who constantly accuses the Bush admin of being nothing but liars you'd think you would at least be truthful yourself. There is no truth at all in what you're claiming Clarke said. I wont even give you credit for an 'exageration'. It is nothing but a lie!
Sorry, Passion51, it's not a lie. From the 60 minutes interview:
QUOTE
As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, (National Security Council #2 man) Stephen Hadley, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."
When told by (Leslie) Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."
When told by (Leslie) Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."
And this, from CNN's American Morning (CruisingRam's source):
QUOTE
HEMMER: There are now questions about this conversation, what happened what did not happen. On CBS's "60 minutes" Sunday night, you said, "Well, there's a lot of blame to go around and I probably deserve some blame, too." How do you blame yourself?
CLARKE: Well, I don't blame myself for making up the conversation. I didn't hallucinate it. There are four eyewitnesses to the conversation that the president had with me. It's very convenient that Dr. Rice and the president are now having a memory lapse, a senior moment. The four eyewitnesses recall vividly what happened and agree with my interpretation.
This is not the president saying do everything, look at everybody, look at Iran, look at Hezbollah. This is the president in a very intimidating way, finger in my face saying, I want a paper on Iraq and this attack. Everyone in the room got the same impression and everyone in the room recalls it vividly. So I'm not making it up. I don't have to make it up. It's part of a pattern that this administration -- even before they came into office -- was out to get Iraq even though Iraq was not threatening the United States.
CLARKE: Well, I don't blame myself for making up the conversation. I didn't hallucinate it. There are four eyewitnesses to the conversation that the president had with me. It's very convenient that Dr. Rice and the president are now having a memory lapse, a senior moment. The four eyewitnesses recall vividly what happened and agree with my interpretation.
This is not the president saying do everything, look at everybody, look at Iran, look at Hezbollah. This is the president in a very intimidating way, finger in my face saying, I want a paper on Iraq and this attack. Everyone in the room got the same impression and everyone in the room recalls it vividly. So I'm not making it up. I don't have to make it up. It's part of a pattern that this administration -- even before they came into office -- was out to get Iraq even though Iraq was not threatening the United States.
QUOTE(turnea Posted: Mar 24 2004 @ 10:05 PM)
QUOTE(kalabus @ Mar 24 2004 @ 08:24 PM)
He does not strike me as a dishonest man.
I'm, curious about that, seeing as at least at one point in time (either his employment under Bush or presently) he has clearly intentionally mislead the American people...
...and as you've probably have guessed I find "It was his job" a thoroughly insufficient excuse..
Therefore, it is clear that Richard Clarke either was recently or is now a dishonest man, and dishonest about the gravest of circumstances.
Not dishonest at all turnea. let's take a look at yesterday's testimony at the hearings:
At the hearing, Republican commissioner James R. Thompson, a former Illinois governor, held up Clarke's book and a text of the briefing and challenged the witness, "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?"
Clarke said both were true. He was still working for Bush at the time of the briefing and was asked to highlight the positive aspects of the administration's counterterrorism efforts and minimize the negative, he said.
Now, really. You never, ever, at a company you worked for, either at the request of management, or on your own, highlighted the positive aspects about your company or it's products and failed to mention any of the negatives? Particularly if you knew that dissing the company or products would get back to the company and certainly cause you to be fired? Never? You never wrote a letter of resignation that was polite and positive, to keep from burning bridges behind you, that you just might need later? Never?
Look, the fact of the matter is, there is a systemic problem in this administration. They have a long history of suppressing evidence contrary to their "official position", and then either threatening to fire, actually firing (or forcing resignations), or finding other ways (character assassination) to punish anyone who disagrees with them.
Let's look at all the cases, shall we?
Christine Todd Whitman, bashed over and over again, until she is forced to resign.
General Eric Shineski tells congress post-war Iraq will take a large occupation force. He is publicly derided by Paul Wolfowitz, and re-assigned. He resigns in disgust.
Larry Lindsey, economic advisor, fired after revealing that war with Iraq would cost at least $200 Billion, when the administration was quoting a much lower number.
Paul O’Neill went public with his revelation on the inner workings of the administration, was called a liar and opportunist, and was threatened with investigation for releasing classified information.
Joseph Wilson, revealed that the President's Niger uranium claims were false. Apparently with nothing on Wilson, they "outed" his wife, a CIA operative.
Jeffrey Kofman, an ABC news correspondent, was critical of the execution of the war in Iraq. He was "outed" by the White House for the unpardonable sins of being gay and Canadian.
Robert Foster, the government's top expert on Medicare costs, was warned that he would be fired if he revealed a series of Bush administration cost estimates on Medicare before the bill came to a vote. Cost estimates that far exceeded what the admistration was touting, in an effort to get Republicans to vote for the measure. Aferwards, they didn't even have the good grace to look embarassed about lying to the public and congress about the real numbers.
Richard Clarke, portrayed as a liar and crazy man, obssessed with 'cyber-terrorism' by Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh's program. Portrayed by other White House staffers as "out of the loop" vis-a-vis anti-terrorism activities, and as "just a disgruntled former employee". Called an opportunist for writing a book that details the failings of three different administrations regarding anti-terrorism, because it is critical of this administration.
Come on, now. No-one on the "right" sees a disturbing pattern here? The government employees were all loyal, mostly Republican, and in highly placed positions in the administration. Now that they are gone, they are all liars and buffoons? I would think that if they really were as untruthful and incompetent as the White House wants you to believe, they would not have attained the positions they held, or kept them for so long.
And that's why I believe Clarke over the administration in this matter. There is just too much of the same type of accusations coming from not just one source (Clarke), but from a multitude of sources. How many more do we have to have, before we say "Enough is enough"? How many more good people will there be to come forward and tell the truth, that this administration smears as being liars, or opportunists, or incompetent, before the we decide that maybe there is something to all of the assertions being made?
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Mar 25 2004, 11:34 AM)
Not dishonest at all turnea. let's take a look at yesterday's testimony at the hearings:
At the hearing, Republican commissioner James R. Thompson, a former Illinois governor, held up Clarke's book and a text of the briefing and challenged the witness, "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?"
Clarke said both were true. He was still working for Bush at the time of the briefing and was asked to highlight the positive aspects of the administration's counterterrorism efforts and minimize the negative, he said.
I think it is time I make perfectly clear what I mean by Clarke's contradictory statements.
First the Clarke of 2004
QUOTE
"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.
QUOTE
I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe
Ex-Adviser Says Bush Ignored Terror Threats Clarke of 2002
QUOTE(Richard Clarke)
there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. [...]And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. [...]And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
These two assessments are directly contradictory, at least one is a lie...
I have to run (literally), but I will add that reading through the entire transcript will help even more...
QUOTE(DontReadOnMe)
The Clinton Admin has always stated that they gave Bush and Co. warnings and plan to deal with OBL and AQ.
In the backgrounder interview, Clarke specifically stated the opposite.
In the backgrounder interview, Clarke specifically stated the opposite.
Hmmm, I must have missed where he stated the exact opposite. I know that in his 2002 transcript where he "praised" the Bush administration, he stated:
QUOTE(From Amlord's Transcript)
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place
QUOTE
And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy.
It seems like the Bush administration did get some form of strategy from Clinton. That was acknowledged by Clarke in 2002, and I haven't heard him refuting that recently.
QUOTE
Hmmm, I must have missed where he stated the exact opposite. I know that in his 2002 transcript where he "praised" the Bush administration, he stated:
From the transcript: Link
QUOTE
Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
In response to NiteGuy's post, yes it's a disturbing pattern, but just as you basically claim that some on the right are blind to the 'truth', there are those on the left, and on AD, that will refuse to look critically at allegations against the GWB admin for essentially the same reasons.
I don't think Clarke is lying.
I think it's fairly disingenuous to compare statements made while he worked in the white house to statements made outside the white house. That is holding him to standard nobody else gets held to. Unless you are seriously trying to suggest everybody in any administration you could think of always tells the truth, but Clarke is the only exception.
It tears me up to hear people start on the motive aspect because of a book. Clinton's henchmen said that about Republicans, and it was soundly rejected. Double standard maybe?
As far as the book deal timing, that had more to do with the White House than him. He had the book done long ago, but he couldn't release it until the white house checked it for national security issues. They were the ones to release it recently - not him.
Now, his truthfulness now? Look at the tape of the tape that NiteGuy provided. I would only add to his list:
Rands Beer - Resigned because he thought a war with Iraq would hurt the fight against terrorism. His quote: "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure".
What can we conclude?
a) They're all liars
They're all telling the truth
If Clarke is lying, then so is everybody else. Plus, the Bush administration would have to be hiring some of the most incompetent people to ever run our country. One bad apple seems reasonable. But 7?
The answer is clear. This a smear campaign by Bush to get re-elected. Hope you can sleep well at night, because nobody is minding the security store.
Edited to add:
Oh, and let's not forget Condi Rice. She talked to every talking head that would listen to her over the last several days, but wouldn't go under oath at the 9/11 commission. Why not? If it's national security concerns, Tenet and Rumsfield didn't seem too worried about it.
I think it's fairly disingenuous to compare statements made while he worked in the white house to statements made outside the white house. That is holding him to standard nobody else gets held to. Unless you are seriously trying to suggest everybody in any administration you could think of always tells the truth, but Clarke is the only exception.
It tears me up to hear people start on the motive aspect because of a book. Clinton's henchmen said that about Republicans, and it was soundly rejected. Double standard maybe?
As far as the book deal timing, that had more to do with the White House than him. He had the book done long ago, but he couldn't release it until the white house checked it for national security issues. They were the ones to release it recently - not him.
Now, his truthfulness now? Look at the tape of the tape that NiteGuy provided. I would only add to his list:
Rands Beer - Resigned because he thought a war with Iraq would hurt the fight against terrorism. His quote: "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure".
What can we conclude?
a) They're all liars
They're all telling the truthIf Clarke is lying, then so is everybody else. Plus, the Bush administration would have to be hiring some of the most incompetent people to ever run our country. One bad apple seems reasonable. But 7?
The answer is clear. This a smear campaign by Bush to get re-elected. Hope you can sleep well at night, because nobody is minding the security store.
Edited to add:
Oh, and let's not forget Condi Rice. She talked to every talking head that would listen to her over the last several days, but wouldn't go under oath at the 9/11 commission. Why not? If it's national security concerns, Tenet and Rumsfield didn't seem too worried about it.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Mar 25 2004, 01:09 PM)
I think it's fairly disingenuous to compare statements made while he worked in the white house to statements made outside the white house. That is holding him to standard nobody else gets held to.
Pardon, nobody else in the administration is expected not to lie to the American people about matters of national security? I don't know about other peoples standards but I consider that a pretty big deal.
Clarke lied, either now or earlier. When he admits it he can claim the moral high ground, until then he's an unrepentant liar.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
As far as the book deal timing, that had more to do with the White House than him. He had the book done long ago, but he couldn't release it until the white house checked it for national security issues. They were the ones to release it recently - not him.
Is that so? Could you provide documentation, this could indeed help make Clarke's case.
The direct contradiction that turnea brought up, the same one I brought up in the first post in this thread, remains: Did Bush do "nothing" as Clarke is saying now, or did he do much more than the Clinton administration, but not enough (what he said in 2002).
The other relevant point is why Clarke wrote his book.
From the Larry King interview:
Clarke keeps coming back to this point, that the Bush administration failed to stop 9/11 (with the underlying assumption that this was possible).
What disturbs me further is Clarke's stance on the Clinton administration vs. the Bush administration:
Soooo...the multiple acts of terrorism committed during the Clinton years were somehow "small potatoes". I guess he doesn't realize that the first World Trade Center bombing intended the exact same thing that 9/11 did. Fortunately, it failed to achieve its goal. Had things gone a little differently, we might have had thousands of dead in 1993.
This guys, as the Terrorism "Czar" is saying that terrorism wasn't that bad under Clinton because "only" 35 people died.
Totally unacceptable.
Now, this flies in the face of what came out in "Time" magazine in 2002:
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?
Now, that being said, is it truthful that Bush "ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11"?
Does it seem truthful that Bush "responded to al Qaeda, (both) before 9/11 by doing nothing"?
This was Spring of 2001 when Rice told the NSC that "The President wants a plan to eliminate al-Qaeda."
Am I saying that Bush did absolutely everything correctly? No, I am not.
Am I saying that Bush did all he could? Again, no.
But saying that Bush "did nothing" or "ignored it" is patently false. And this is the claim that Clarke has forwarded more than once.
I realize Clarke is frustrated that more could have been done. Like it or not, the pre-9/11 world was a different one, with different priorities.
Did the transition from Clinton to Bush hurt the fight against terror? I am sure that it did. Of course, Clinton (rightly or wrongly) decided NOT to implement a plan in late 2000 to go after the Taliban because they were housing Al Qaeda.
What irks me is why other media sources (other than Fox News) have chosen not to investigate or even report on Clarke's "background brief" in October 2002, where he painted a very different picture than he does now.
Clarke continues to assert that both his statements in 2002 and his statements now are true...
Clarke Grabs Center Stage at 9/11 Hearing
His testimony (under oath) seems to contradict the 15 hours of testimony he gave the delivered behind closed doors to the 9/11 commission.
This op ed sums it up pretty well
RICHARD CLARKE'S SHIFTING STORIES
THAT is the point. What Bush did towards Iraq in 2002 had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented.
I think Clarke's portrayal that Bush "did nothing" is patently false.
The other relevant point is why Clarke wrote his book.
From the Larry King interview:
QUOTE
KING: Our panel will join us later, we begin with Richard Clarke. He testified before the commission today. He served as White House counterterrorism czar for both President Bush and Clinton, served in the administrations of President Bush No. 1 and Ronald Reagan and is the author of an extraordinary new book, "Against All Enemies, Inside America's War on Terror" published by Free Press Day, you see its cover. Why did you write this, Dick?
CLARKE: Larry, after I left the government I realized two things. One, that not a lot of people knew what happened on 9/11. There was no good account of that. And the more compelling reason, there was no good account of why we had failed to stop it. The families, many of whom I met today at the hearing and other people were constantly asking, why couldn't the great United States of America have stopped this attack and what do we have to do to make sure it never happens again? I had some of the answers, I thought and they weren't getting out anywhere else. I really felt I needed to get it off my chest.
CLARKE: Larry, after I left the government I realized two things. One, that not a lot of people knew what happened on 9/11. There was no good account of that. And the more compelling reason, there was no good account of why we had failed to stop it. The families, many of whom I met today at the hearing and other people were constantly asking, why couldn't the great United States of America have stopped this attack and what do we have to do to make sure it never happens again? I had some of the answers, I thought and they weren't getting out anywhere else. I really felt I needed to get it off my chest.
Clarke keeps coming back to this point, that the Bush administration failed to stop 9/11 (with the underlying assumption that this was possible).
What disturbs me further is Clarke's stance on the Clinton administration vs. the Bush administration:
QUOTE
KING: Isn't all acts of terror a failure of somebody?
CLARKE: Certainly, certainly they are. Few acts of terror or no acts of terror were ever as extraordinary as those of 9/11. You know, if you look at the entire eight years of the Clinton administration, 35 Americans were killed by al Qaeda over eight years. And 3,000 were killed on 9/11. It's a whole different class than previous acts of terrorism.
CLARKE: Certainly, certainly they are. Few acts of terror or no acts of terror were ever as extraordinary as those of 9/11. You know, if you look at the entire eight years of the Clinton administration, 35 Americans were killed by al Qaeda over eight years. And 3,000 were killed on 9/11. It's a whole different class than previous acts of terrorism.
Soooo...the multiple acts of terrorism committed during the Clinton years were somehow "small potatoes". I guess he doesn't realize that the first World Trade Center bombing intended the exact same thing that 9/11 did. Fortunately, it failed to achieve its goal. Had things gone a little differently, we might have had thousands of dead in 1993.
This guys, as the Terrorism "Czar" is saying that terrorism wasn't that bad under Clinton because "only" 35 people died.
Totally unacceptable.Now, this flies in the face of what came out in "Time" magazine in 2002:
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?
QUOTE
A participant at one of the meetings paraphrases Clarke's attitude this way: "These people are trying to kill us. I could give a f___ if Musharraf was democratically elected. What I do care about is Pakistan's support for the Taliban and turning a blind eye to this terrorist cancer growing in their neighbor's backyard."
It was Bush who broke the deadlock. Each morning the CIA gives the Chief Executive a top-secret Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) on pressing issues of national security. One day in early spring, Tenet briefed Bush on the hunt for Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's head of international operations, who was suspected of having been involved in the planning of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. After the PDB, Bush told Rice that the approach to al-Qaeda was too scattershot. He was tired of "swatting at flies" and asked for a comprehensive plan for attacking terrorism. According to an official, Rice came back to the nsc and said, "The President wants a plan to eliminate al-Qaeda." Clarke reminded her that he already had one.
It was Bush who broke the deadlock. Each morning the CIA gives the Chief Executive a top-secret Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) on pressing issues of national security. One day in early spring, Tenet briefed Bush on the hunt for Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's head of international operations, who was suspected of having been involved in the planning of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. After the PDB, Bush told Rice that the approach to al-Qaeda was too scattershot. He was tired of "swatting at flies" and asked for a comprehensive plan for attacking terrorism. According to an official, Rice came back to the nsc and said, "The President wants a plan to eliminate al-Qaeda." Clarke reminded her that he already had one.
Now, that being said, is it truthful that Bush "ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11"?
Does it seem truthful that Bush "responded to al Qaeda, (both) before 9/11 by doing nothing"?
This was Spring of 2001 when Rice told the NSC that "The President wants a plan to eliminate al-Qaeda."
Am I saying that Bush did absolutely everything correctly? No, I am not.
Am I saying that Bush did all he could? Again, no.
But saying that Bush "did nothing" or "ignored it" is patently false. And this is the claim that Clarke has forwarded more than once.
I realize Clarke is frustrated that more could have been done. Like it or not, the pre-9/11 world was a different one, with different priorities.
Did the transition from Clinton to Bush hurt the fight against terror? I am sure that it did. Of course, Clinton (rightly or wrongly) decided NOT to implement a plan in late 2000 to go after the Taliban because they were housing Al Qaeda.
What irks me is why other media sources (other than Fox News) have chosen not to investigate or even report on Clarke's "background brief" in October 2002, where he painted a very different picture than he does now.
Clarke continues to assert that both his statements in 2002 and his statements now are true...
Clarke Grabs Center Stage at 9/11 Hearing
QUOTE
At the hearing, Republican commissioner James R. Thompson, a former Illinois governor, held up Clarke's book and a text of the briefing and challenged the witness, "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?"
Clarke said both were true. He was still working for Bush at the time of the briefing and was asked to highlight the positive aspects of the administration's counterterrorism efforts and minimize the negative, he said.
Clarke said both were true. He was still working for Bush at the time of the briefing and was asked to highlight the positive aspects of the administration's counterterrorism efforts and minimize the negative, he said.
His testimony (under oath) seems to contradict the 15 hours of testimony he gave the delivered behind closed doors to the 9/11 commission.
This op ed sums it up pretty well
RICHARD CLARKE'S SHIFTING STORIES
QUOTE
As several commissioners noted, the book's accusations - which he repeated under oath yesterday - are totally at odds with the 15 hours of closed-door testimony Clarke delivered earlier to the 9/11 commission.
And they are dramatically contradicted by a press backgrounder Clarke himself conducted in August 2002. Fox News made an audiotape of that briefing public yesterday; in it, Clarke confirms much of what Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified to on Tuesday.
"I've seen your book, and I've seen the text of your press briefing," said former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson. "Which one is true?"
The answer seems abundantly clear: You won't find Clarke's honest account in bookstores.
Clarke yesterday defended President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), whom he served as a top anti-terrorism advisor, alleging the former president had "no higher priority" than combating terrorism. Then he asserted that Bush made terrorism "an important issue, but not an urgent one."
But that's not even close to what Clarke said in the 2002 briefing - namely, that the Bush administration had "changed the strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timelime."
In fact, said Clarke in 2002, "There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. . . . [Call it a] plan, strategy, there was no, nothing new."
As a consequence, Clarke added, Bush decided to "initiate a process to look at all [terrorism] issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided."
In particular, he said, the Bush administration reversed course on Pakistan, taking a new approach that ultimately succeeded in convincing Islamabad "to break away from the Taliban."
Part of that plan, adopted in mid-February 2001, he said, was to "increase CIA (news - web sites) resources . . . for covert action five-fold to go after al Qaeda" (emphasis added).
Continuing, Clarke said that key security matters had been left unresolved since 1998, "because they were tough issues" and the Clinton White House was unprepared to make hard decisions.
And he confirmed that the first, more forceful, changes in counter-terrorism strategy since October 1998 weren't made until the spring of 2001 - after the Bush administration took office.
And they are dramatically contradicted by a press backgrounder Clarke himself conducted in August 2002. Fox News made an audiotape of that briefing public yesterday; in it, Clarke confirms much of what Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified to on Tuesday.
"I've seen your book, and I've seen the text of your press briefing," said former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson. "Which one is true?"
The answer seems abundantly clear: You won't find Clarke's honest account in bookstores.
Clarke yesterday defended President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), whom he served as a top anti-terrorism advisor, alleging the former president had "no higher priority" than combating terrorism. Then he asserted that Bush made terrorism "an important issue, but not an urgent one."
But that's not even close to what Clarke said in the 2002 briefing - namely, that the Bush administration had "changed the strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timelime."
In fact, said Clarke in 2002, "There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. . . . [Call it a] plan, strategy, there was no, nothing new."
As a consequence, Clarke added, Bush decided to "initiate a process to look at all [terrorism] issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided."
In particular, he said, the Bush administration reversed course on Pakistan, taking a new approach that ultimately succeeded in convincing Islamabad "to break away from the Taliban."
Part of that plan, adopted in mid-February 2001, he said, was to "increase CIA (news - web sites) resources . . . for covert action five-fold to go after al Qaeda" (emphasis added).
Continuing, Clarke said that key security matters had been left unresolved since 1998, "because they were tough issues" and the Clinton White House was unprepared to make hard decisions.
And he confirmed that the first, more forceful, changes in counter-terrorism strategy since October 1998 weren't made until the spring of 2001 - after the Bush administration took office.
QUOTE
"This can't be the same Dick Clarke I heard behind closed doors," the former secretary said. "There is a tremendous difference, not just in nuance but in what you choose [now] to tell. It is so different from the thrust of your [earlier] testimony."
So, what changed?
Clarke claims it was the Iraq (news - web sites) war.
"By invading Iraq, we greatly undermined the War on Terror," he declared yesterday.
But Operation Iraqi Freedom - whatever its merits - had nothing to do with what the Bush administration did or didn't do when it came to combating al Qaeda, pre- or post-9/11.
So, what changed?
Clarke claims it was the Iraq (news - web sites) war.
"By invading Iraq, we greatly undermined the War on Terror," he declared yesterday.
But Operation Iraqi Freedom - whatever its merits - had nothing to do with what the Bush administration did or didn't do when it came to combating al Qaeda, pre- or post-9/11.
THAT is the point. What Bush did towards Iraq in 2002 had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented.
I think Clarke's portrayal that Bush "did nothing" is patently false.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 25 2004, 02:53 PM)
His testimony (under oath) seems to contradict the 15 hours of testimony he gave the delivered behind closed doors to the 9/11 commission.
You state this, but I didn't see any transcript of those interviews posted. You seem to equate a public briefing with his private interviews with the 9/11 commission. Also, this morning, as I've noted, one of the commissioners came out and said point-blank that the information Clarke provided in yesterday's public interview matched the private interviews he gave to the commission. There was no discrepency there.
As for turnea wanting to know about the delay for the vetting process, here's part of the 3/23 press briefing by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan:
QUOTE
Q You and others at the White House made a point of saying yesterday that the timing was suspect because it's an election year. You asked why he had waited this long to make his concerns known. He says that the book could have been published in December, but for the White House security review process.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's be clear here. His book went through the normal review process. It went through the normal national security review process to look at classification issues. This is standard practice to make sure that classified information is not inadvertently released. Dick Clarke could have released his book at any time, but the fact is he chose to release it at a time and in a way where he could maximize coverage to sell books, and at a time when he could have the impact to influence the political discourse. That's very clear.
Q He could have released it at any time --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, his publisher put out that he was going to release it at the end of April, I might point out to you. That's been in the public domain.
Q And could he have released it before the security review?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, certainly if he had such grave concerns, he could have raised those a year ago when he was leaving the administration, or over a year -- more than a year ago.
Q You just shifted the question, though. When did the security review conclude? In other words, when was he free as far as the United States government was concerned to publish this book?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, keep in mind that his publisher put out that it would come out at the end of April. There is a normal review process you go through in a situation like this that involves discussing information that's potentially classified for national security reasons. It went through the normal review process.
Q But he says that normal review process ended up delaying the publication of the book.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, look, Terry, he could release this book at any time. It's very clear that he chose to release it at a time --
Q No, he couldn't release it at any time --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Bill, he chose to release it at a time when he could maximize coverage for promoting and selling his book, and he chose to release it at a time --
Q When was he free to release it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Can I finish? He chose to release it at a time when he could influence the political discourse. I can get you the exact time period of when that --
Q You've made that point, but Terry and I are trying to find out when it could have been released without -- having been reviewed for the security --
MR. McCLELLAN: I can get you the time period when it was given to us, things like that.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's be clear here. His book went through the normal review process. It went through the normal national security review process to look at classification issues. This is standard practice to make sure that classified information is not inadvertently released. Dick Clarke could have released his book at any time, but the fact is he chose to release it at a time and in a way where he could maximize coverage to sell books, and at a time when he could have the impact to influence the political discourse. That's very clear.
Q He could have released it at any time --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, his publisher put out that he was going to release it at the end of April, I might point out to you. That's been in the public domain.
Q And could he have released it before the security review?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, certainly if he had such grave concerns, he could have raised those a year ago when he was leaving the administration, or over a year -- more than a year ago.
Q You just shifted the question, though. When did the security review conclude? In other words, when was he free as far as the United States government was concerned to publish this book?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, keep in mind that his publisher put out that it would come out at the end of April. There is a normal review process you go through in a situation like this that involves discussing information that's potentially classified for national security reasons. It went through the normal review process.
Q But he says that normal review process ended up delaying the publication of the book.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, look, Terry, he could release this book at any time. It's very clear that he chose to release it at a time --
Q No, he couldn't release it at any time --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Bill, he chose to release it at a time when he could maximize coverage for promoting and selling his book, and he chose to release it at a time --
Q When was he free to release it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Can I finish? He chose to release it at a time when he could influence the political discourse. I can get you the exact time period of when that --
Q You've made that point, but Terry and I are trying to find out when it could have been released without -- having been reviewed for the security --
MR. McCLELLAN: I can get you the time period when it was given to us, things like that.
QUOTE(turnea @ Mar 25 2004, 02:45 PM)
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Mar 25 2004, 01:09 PM)
I think it's fairly disingenuous to compare statements made while he worked in the white house to statements made outside the white house. That is holding him to standard nobody else gets held to.
Pardon, nobody else in the administration is expected not to lie to the American people about matters of national security? I don't know about other peoples standards but I consider that a pretty big deal.
Clarke lied, either now or earlier. When he admits it he can claim the moral high ground, until then he's an unrepentant liar.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
As far as the book deal timing, that had more to do with the White House than him. He had the book done long ago, but he couldn't release it until the white house checked it for national security issues. They were the ones to release it recently - not him.
Is that so? Could you provide documentation, this could indeed help make Clarke's case.
Sure, he's stated this over and over (I thought I heard it in the 60 minutes interview), but it keeps getting ignored and ignored:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796/
From the article...
QUOTE
Clarke critics also question the timing of his book release right before the commission hearings, suggesting efforts to self-promote. But Clarke told Charlie Rose last night that he submitted his book to the Administration in November (for a security review, etc.), which would suggest that the book is coming out on the Administration's timetable, and also that some in the Administration knew what was going to be in it.
QUOTE(amf @ Mar 25 2004, 03:15 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 25 2004, 02:53 PM)
His testimony (under oath) seems to contradict the 15 hours of testimony he gave the delivered behind closed doors to the 9/11 commission.
You state this, but I didn't see any transcript of those interviews posted. You seem to equate a public briefing with his private interviews with the 9/11 commission. Also, this morning, as I've noted, one of the commissioners came out and said point-blank that the information Clarke provided in yesterday's public interview matched the private interviews he gave to the commission. There was no discrepency there.
I know you know what the meaning of "Closed Door" (in camera) meetings are...there is no transcript.
QUOTE
"This can't be the same Dick Clarke I heard behind closed doors," the former secretary said. "There is a tremendous difference, not just in nuance but in what you choose [now] to tell. It is so different from the thrust of your [earlier] testimony."
That quote was from John Lehman, a commission member. It isn't me that is characterizing his testimony as different from what he said earlier. I have no idea what he said earlier.
But can someone answer my question? Did Bush "do nothing" or "ignore" terrorism as Clarke has stated?
Or did he
QUOTE
Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
as Clarke also stated.
Which is it? The question has nothing to do with Iraq or his book. It has to do with which Richard Clarke was telling the truth.
QUOTE
Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
These two assessments are directly contradictory, at least one is a lie...
I have to run (literally), but I will add that reading through the entire transcript will help even more...
These two assessments are directly contradictory, at least one is a lie...
I have to run (literally), but I will add that reading through the entire transcript will help even more...
The attempt to tarnish Clarke's credibility by referring to the background memo is laughable. The moral outrage of Gov. Jim Thompson on the committee and others that have criticized Clarke is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, the entire transcript is very helpful. Let's look at it and point out exactly what the "discrepancy" is.
QUOTE
Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
...
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
...
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.
So... was it a plan, or was it a series of issues, along with an existing strategy? Whew! What a whopper! I don't know why anyone listens to this Clarke guy, saying it is a series of issues in one place and a plan in another.
Well gosh, it's really nice that the party loyalists want to spin this in a way that makes Clarke look bad. Heck, character assassination has been their stock in trade since Newt Gingrich raised (or lowered, I should say) the bar for vituperative attacks.
But I am sorry to say that this looks bad for Bush no matter how one spins it. You can try and make Clarke the focus, and try to make the debate center around "either he's lying now, or he was lying then," as though it were that simplistic! If you want an either/or, since those seem to be so much better understood by radicals of any stripe, how about this one:
Either there is a serious problem with the Bush administration stifling debate and running over anyone who dares question their agenda, OR, there is a serious problem with the Bush administration because they have shown an incredible ineptitude by hiring so many Republican liars to work in their administration.
Clarke shares with these others several important traits:
1. Since "coming out," the administration and their lapdogs have been trying to make them seem like lunatics.
2. All of them describe a similar pressure, while they held their jobs, to say certain things in a certain way when speaking to the public. Isn't it as easy to imagine that many of them gave into this pressure, rather than believe that they were running around telling malicious lies while holding positions in the executive branch of our nation? I'm sure many of the Republicans trying desperately to vindicate their man Bush would like to think that if THEY were in that position, they would speak their minds at the time, job be damned. But would they? Their willingness, while not even holding ANY positions in the administration, to shill for the Bush spin, says otherwise.
I don't mean to personally offend anyone here, and I guess I don't blame any of you for reacting this way - it's just hard for me to understand how people can be so loyal to a party that they stop critically questioning it. Thankfully, there are those on the left and the right who realize that in order to make this government work for the people, critical questions MUST be asked; nothing should be taken at face value, whether it harms your "side" or not. I voted for Clinton twice, yet I felt NO compelling need to defend either his administration, or the party. Indeed, I believe we exercise our duties as American citizens best when we ask the tough questions of power, no matter who that power is.
But I am sorry to say that this looks bad for Bush no matter how one spins it. You can try and make Clarke the focus, and try to make the debate center around "either he's lying now, or he was lying then," as though it were that simplistic! If you want an either/or, since those seem to be so much better understood by radicals of any stripe, how about this one:
Either there is a serious problem with the Bush administration stifling debate and running over anyone who dares question their agenda, OR, there is a serious problem with the Bush administration because they have shown an incredible ineptitude by hiring so many Republican liars to work in their administration.
Clarke shares with these others several important traits:
1. Since "coming out," the administration and their lapdogs have been trying to make them seem like lunatics.
2. All of them describe a similar pressure, while they held their jobs, to say certain things in a certain way when speaking to the public. Isn't it as easy to imagine that many of them gave into this pressure, rather than believe that they were running around telling malicious lies while holding positions in the executive branch of our nation? I'm sure many of the Republicans trying desperately to vindicate their man Bush would like to think that if THEY were in that position, they would speak their minds at the time, job be damned. But would they? Their willingness, while not even holding ANY positions in the administration, to shill for the Bush spin, says otherwise.
I don't mean to personally offend anyone here, and I guess I don't blame any of you for reacting this way - it's just hard for me to understand how people can be so loyal to a party that they stop critically questioning it. Thankfully, there are those on the left and the right who realize that in order to make this government work for the people, critical questions MUST be asked; nothing should be taken at face value, whether it harms your "side" or not. I voted for Clinton twice, yet I felt NO compelling need to defend either his administration, or the party. Indeed, I believe we exercise our duties as American citizens best when we ask the tough questions of power, no matter who that power is.
Thanks quark, but care to answer the Question for Debate?
Just trying to keep the "party loyalist" party going...and maybe get some answers.
QUOTE
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
Just trying to keep the "party loyalist" party going...and maybe get some answers.
There have been a trickle of Bush insiders (republicans) calling the president out on a number of issues and theyve all been dismissed essentially as liars by people who usually havent read the book. Clarke, Dilulio and ONeil come to mind.
During the Clinton years I read the Stephanopolous book and didnt doubt that he had witnessed some of Clintons uglier and weaker moments. I guess I didnt drink enough kool-aid but it seems some republicans imagine Bush is the second coming of the messiah. For them the only mistake Bush can make is be too liberal, everything else is "damn lies"...
WWF politics.
During the Clinton years I read the Stephanopolous book and didnt doubt that he had witnessed some of Clintons uglier and weaker moments. I guess I didnt drink enough kool-aid but it seems some republicans imagine Bush is the second coming of the messiah. For them the only mistake Bush can make is be too liberal, everything else is "damn lies"...
WWF politics.
Please remember that we have a very specific question to debate here about why Richard Clarke's portrayal has changed. Please keep your posts constructive and on topic.
Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
As I understand it, Clack gave a conference call briefing to several members of the press that completely contradicted his current statements. That briefing was given to the press as "a senior white house source" as was the requirement of the white house.
Recently, a journalist at fox news found that he still had the tape of that conversation. He contacted the white house and said that though they didn't want him named at the time, could he be named as that source now, considering the fact that his briefing to the press was completely opposite to what he is now saying was going on at the time.
The link to the Fox story: Clarke and the 2002 press briefing
The link to the transcript of the tape: Transcript
I know there are some that will say, "well how can we trust it? Its from Fox!!!" I don't agree with that point of view but:
A> It's on tape, I heard that tape played on the air this morning as I drove to work
B> Clarke did not deny any of it.
What happened or didn't happen is still up in the air. That is what the commission is all about, finding out what went wrong to prevent the same thing from happening again.
CLEARLY there are major differences between what Clark said then and what he is saying now. His answer to this is that he was "spinning" it for his boss, yet he told the commission the Bush adminstration never asked or suggested he lie in the briefing and if that had he would not have done it. When asked by the commission which version is truth he say both. This is simply odd and suggests that there may be a problem with Clarkes credibility.
That doesn't men that the Bush administration doesn't have issues as well. I seem to remember (but couldn't find anything on) Bush saying something about how he wished they had put AQ on a higher priority earlier.
But there are credibility issues for Clarke. Clarke is selling a book, and he works for a homeland security consulting firm. It is reasonable to wonder if there is a profit motive here, just as it is reasonable to wonder it there is a butt covering motive at the white house.
My real issue with this is the politicizing of it all. I mean come on!, we are trying to figure out if there were things we could have done better or did wrong to prevent it from happening in the future. This has NOTHING to do with politics, or at least it shouldn't.
edited to add:
It is also pretty clear from his comments in that briefing that the Clinton Administration was investigating the AQ issue and all of the problems.
When asked, why they had not come to a final decision of several of the issues Clarke says "because they were tough issues", and explains al of the problems associated with different plans and ideas.
Recently, a journalist at fox news found that he still had the tape of that conversation. He contacted the white house and said that though they didn't want him named at the time, could he be named as that source now, considering the fact that his briefing to the press was completely opposite to what he is now saying was going on at the time.
The link to the Fox story: Clarke and the 2002 press briefing
The link to the transcript of the tape: Transcript
I know there are some that will say, "well how can we trust it? Its from Fox!!!" I don't agree with that point of view but:
A> It's on tape, I heard that tape played on the air this morning as I drove to work
B> Clarke did not deny any of it.
What happened or didn't happen is still up in the air. That is what the commission is all about, finding out what went wrong to prevent the same thing from happening again.
CLEARLY there are major differences between what Clark said then and what he is saying now. His answer to this is that he was "spinning" it for his boss, yet he told the commission the Bush adminstration never asked or suggested he lie in the briefing and if that had he would not have done it. When asked by the commission which version is truth he say both. This is simply odd and suggests that there may be a problem with Clarkes credibility.
That doesn't men that the Bush administration doesn't have issues as well. I seem to remember (but couldn't find anything on) Bush saying something about how he wished they had put AQ on a higher priority earlier.
But there are credibility issues for Clarke. Clarke is selling a book, and he works for a homeland security consulting firm. It is reasonable to wonder if there is a profit motive here, just as it is reasonable to wonder it there is a butt covering motive at the white house.
My real issue with this is the politicizing of it all. I mean come on!, we are trying to figure out if there were things we could have done better or did wrong to prevent it from happening in the future. This has NOTHING to do with politics, or at least it shouldn't.
edited to add:
It is also pretty clear from his comments in that briefing that the Clinton Administration was investigating the AQ issue and all of the problems.
When asked, why they had not come to a final decision of several of the issues Clarke says "because they were tough issues", and explains al of the problems associated with different plans and ideas.
I don't have the talent most of you have when it comes to searching things out on the net to back or explain things, but one question was asked in this discussion which from what I have seen has been over read, ignored or just what ever.
Because it was ased in this discussion I thought I would try to answer it here. If it doesn't belong here my apologies.
What little I have found is this.
Letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to President Clinton concerning Haiti
and this page.
Constituional conflicts
Because it was ased in this discussion I thought I would try to answer it here. If it doesn't belong here my apologies.
QUOTE
(Would somebody please tell me how Rice testifying under oath before Congress would compromise the separation of government powers???),
What little I have found is this.
Letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to President Clinton concerning Haiti
and this page.
Constituional conflicts
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
It's really quite simple. Richard Clarke has washed the blood from his hands. I wrote the following today for another venue, but it fits the context of your question fairly well:
It's really quite simple. Richard Clarke has washed the blood from his hands. I wrote the following today for another venue, but it fits the context of your question fairly well:
QUOTE
As the author of two books, I'm painfully aware that the English language is a complicated animal. While I've been a lifelong student of the written and spoken word, I like to think I'm also a fairly good interpreter of what's best described as "delivery". Verbal delivery is a combination of raw words, tonal nuance, facial expression, and body language. We all know that individual words can have many meanings, but when you consider the other facets of communication, the potential meanings of individual words multiply exponentially.
Perhaps that's why Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission yesterday was so powerful. If you haven't actually watched the testimony (live or on tape), you should do so. The written transcript of his testimony simply can't convey the credibility and raw emotion he brought to the witness table. No one could have scripted his turning away from the panel to directly address the families of 9/11 victims in the room at the beginning of his testimony.
There's no doubt in my mind that Richard Clarke is telling the absolute, unvarnished truth -- at least as he sees it. If "confession" is a means of cleansing the soul, no one watching Clarke's testimony yesterday could bring away anything other than the fact that Clarke has been - still is - hurting since 9/11. His 2 hour equivalent of a Washingtonian primal scream was best summed up in two words that resonate with everyone, because everyone has had to utter them at one time or another:
"I'm sorry."
And that's why today I can finally say, without reservation, that the Bush administration is in grave jeopardy of losing a presidential race that was clearly theirs to lose. As the New York Times editorialized today:
Despite attempts by a few commission members to paint Mr. Clarke as a disgruntled former employee trying to get publicity for his new book, the former counterterrorism chief was an impressive, reasonable witness. He has done the country a service in focusing attention on the failures leading up to 9/11. The only problem with his apology was that so few of those failures really seemed to be his.
It's clear that Richard Clarke is a principled man, probably to a personal fault. That's the part of Clarke for which any reasonable human being can feel empathy. The man, unlike most of his contemporaries in the Bush administration, appears to have a conscience. Richard Clarke accepted responsibility, where lesser men (and women) above and below him continue to play politics and shirk any modicum of responsibility for failure. Never mind "accepting responsibility", hell, for the most part they won't even acknowledge that there was failure.
The Lady MacBeth's of the Bush administration will not be as easily able to wash the blood from their hands as did Richard Clarke.
Perhaps that's why Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission yesterday was so powerful. If you haven't actually watched the testimony (live or on tape), you should do so. The written transcript of his testimony simply can't convey the credibility and raw emotion he brought to the witness table. No one could have scripted his turning away from the panel to directly address the families of 9/11 victims in the room at the beginning of his testimony.
There's no doubt in my mind that Richard Clarke is telling the absolute, unvarnished truth -- at least as he sees it. If "confession" is a means of cleansing the soul, no one watching Clarke's testimony yesterday could bring away anything other than the fact that Clarke has been - still is - hurting since 9/11. His 2 hour equivalent of a Washingtonian primal scream was best summed up in two words that resonate with everyone, because everyone has had to utter them at one time or another:
"I'm sorry."
And that's why today I can finally say, without reservation, that the Bush administration is in grave jeopardy of losing a presidential race that was clearly theirs to lose. As the New York Times editorialized today:
Despite attempts by a few commission members to paint Mr. Clarke as a disgruntled former employee trying to get publicity for his new book, the former counterterrorism chief was an impressive, reasonable witness. He has done the country a service in focusing attention on the failures leading up to 9/11. The only problem with his apology was that so few of those failures really seemed to be his.
It's clear that Richard Clarke is a principled man, probably to a personal fault. That's the part of Clarke for which any reasonable human being can feel empathy. The man, unlike most of his contemporaries in the Bush administration, appears to have a conscience. Richard Clarke accepted responsibility, where lesser men (and women) above and below him continue to play politics and shirk any modicum of responsibility for failure. Never mind "accepting responsibility", hell, for the most part they won't even acknowledge that there was failure.
The Lady MacBeth's of the Bush administration will not be as easily able to wash the blood from their hands as did Richard Clarke.
Thanks, Dontreadonme, for pointing out that first passage. It's obvious I have a bad memory or clumsy eyes, or both. 
In reference to the question, it seems that you could paint this one of two ways. The first, explain the inconsistencies by stating that Clarke was under political pressure at the time. After all, all of the positive statements favoring the Bush administration happened when Clarke was still on their payroll. The other, of course, is to say that Clarke is a liar and an opportunist. Admittingly, he did release his book rather close to the 9/11 hearings and it will probably be a best seller within a week.
First, even though the question is crafted as to avoid this, I'd just like to say that the book is not necessarily invalid because of Clarke's inconsistencies. The book should stand or fall on it's own merits.
Some seem fixated on the fact that he he lied, and from the directness of both of his quotes, it seems that he did. I, personally, think that lying happens all the time in politics. It also seems obvious that the Bush administration was pushing for a positive image of security from him, and nudged him in the direction of highlighting positive aspects of their strategy in that 2002 memo. I mean, doesn't the memo seem like everything the Bush administration would be happy with? He did lie, and the administration certainly didn't do anything to punish him for lying. No one seemed too unhappy with him lying.
What would happen if Clarke suddenly, while on the administration payroll, said:
Its obvious, he would have gotten fired. It's reasonable to assume that Clarke wanted to keep his job, and saying things like this certainly wouldn't have kept him his job. So, he did what he thought was necessary to stay on the payroll.
Now, he's coming out with things that are the opposite of what he previously said. I believe that he's a free man, unrestrained by the pressure to keep his job. I certainly trust his opinion more about the White House now that they aren't paying him.
In reference to the question, it seems that you could paint this one of two ways. The first, explain the inconsistencies by stating that Clarke was under political pressure at the time. After all, all of the positive statements favoring the Bush administration happened when Clarke was still on their payroll. The other, of course, is to say that Clarke is a liar and an opportunist. Admittingly, he did release his book rather close to the 9/11 hearings and it will probably be a best seller within a week.
First, even though the question is crafted as to avoid this, I'd just like to say that the book is not necessarily invalid because of Clarke's inconsistencies. The book should stand or fall on it's own merits.
Some seem fixated on the fact that he he lied, and from the directness of both of his quotes, it seems that he did. I, personally, think that lying happens all the time in politics. It also seems obvious that the Bush administration was pushing for a positive image of security from him, and nudged him in the direction of highlighting positive aspects of their strategy in that 2002 memo. I mean, doesn't the memo seem like everything the Bush administration would be happy with? He did lie, and the administration certainly didn't do anything to punish him for lying. No one seemed too unhappy with him lying.
What would happen if Clarke suddenly, while on the administration payroll, said:
QUOTE
I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe
Its obvious, he would have gotten fired. It's reasonable to assume that Clarke wanted to keep his job, and saying things like this certainly wouldn't have kept him his job. So, he did what he thought was necessary to stay on the payroll.
Now, he's coming out with things that are the opposite of what he previously said. I believe that he's a free man, unrestrained by the pressure to keep his job. I certainly trust his opinion more about the White House now that they aren't paying him.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 25 2004, 01:31 PM)
Thanks quark, but care to answer the Question for Debate?
Just trying to keep the "party loyalist" party going...and maybe get some answers.
QUOTE
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
Just trying to keep the "party loyalist" party going...and maybe get some answers.
You may not like my answer, but you needn't use that as an excuse to stifle debate. If it helps I will spell it out for you. Frankly, this is getting less amusing by the hour.
What's going on here?
The same thing that has been going on with others who left the Bush administration. Hence, in a debate, we bring in some context, to help our case.
Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
Gee, that's what my post was about, Amlord. I really don't feel the need to write it all out again. I offered my hypothesis. I provided evidence (the other condemned ex-Bushies). You don't have to like it. But you don't need to pretend I haven't answered the question.
A couple of small points here.
First, there is a big difference between making a decision in a background briefing (which Clarke claims the Bush administration may have done in February, 2001) and acting on a decision (which Clarke is claiming the Bush administration did not do until after September 11, 2001). There is also something of a difference between "developing implementation details" and actually implementing something. In both cases, the former can be described as "doing nothing". Granted, Clarke may be characterizing the behavior of the Bush administration somewhat, but what he is saying is literally true.
Second, there has been much made of the timing of the book's release. Let us not forget that once the book was completed and ready for publication, over six months ago, Clarke sent the manuscript to the White House for vetting. They held onto it for months - with the option of redacting anything which they felt breached security. It is the White House which dictated the timing of the release of the book, not Richard Clarke. It was, therefore, the Bush administration which chose to release it now. One must wonder if part of their strategy was to be able to dismiss Against All Enemies as some sort of partisan electioneering.
Look at the White House briefing in which the book was first discussed:
They certainly seemed to have that argument ready (along with all the rest of their rebuttal, such as it is) - and more than enough people here have been willing to parrot it. Yet, had it not been for the White House, the book could have been published last fall.
I think it is saddest thing is the extent to which Clarke's name is being besmirched in all this. In fact, Aquilla got it absolutely right in the fifth contribution which appeared in this thread:
Good on ya, Aquilla. It is also worth mentioning that Clarke is the only member of the administration who has yet apologized to the families of the victims of the September 11 attack for having failed to have done even more.
Also, for what it's worth, Clarke is saying of himself exactly what I was saying of him months ago on this forum:
For those following the story, there is nothing new - or untrue - in Clarke's book.
That said, the more important issue in Against All Enemies (as Clarke himself has stated) is not the what White House did - or failed to do - before September 11, but what the White House has done - and failed to do - since September 11. And that is to cripple the war on terror by pursuing the pre-ordained war on Iraq. Tragically, it looks as though Clarke is playing the role of Cassandra yet again.
Rather than criticizing the man, it's about time we started listening to him.
First, there is a big difference between making a decision in a background briefing (which Clarke claims the Bush administration may have done in February, 2001) and acting on a decision (which Clarke is claiming the Bush administration did not do until after September 11, 2001). There is also something of a difference between "developing implementation details" and actually implementing something. In both cases, the former can be described as "doing nothing". Granted, Clarke may be characterizing the behavior of the Bush administration somewhat, but what he is saying is literally true.
Second, there has been much made of the timing of the book's release. Let us not forget that once the book was completed and ready for publication, over six months ago, Clarke sent the manuscript to the White House for vetting. They held onto it for months - with the option of redacting anything which they felt breached security. It is the White House which dictated the timing of the release of the book, not Richard Clarke. It was, therefore, the Bush administration which chose to release it now. One must wonder if part of their strategy was to be able to dismiss Against All Enemies as some sort of partisan electioneering.
Look at the White House briefing in which the book was first discussed:
QUOTE
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign...
It's also important to keep in context -- we're in the heat of a presidential campaign right now and, all of a sudden, he comes out with a book that he is seeking to promote...
It's also important to keep in context -- we're in the heat of a presidential campaign right now and, all of a sudden, he comes out with a book that he is seeking to promote...
They certainly seemed to have that argument ready (along with all the rest of their rebuttal, such as it is) - and more than enough people here have been willing to parrot it. Yet, had it not been for the White House, the book could have been published last fall.
I think it is saddest thing is the extent to which Clarke's name is being besmirched in all this. In fact, Aquilla got it absolutely right in the fifth contribution which appeared in this thread:
QUOTE
Mr. Clarke is a fine man, a loyal American and a true patriot. He has served this nation well over the years. With 20/20 hindsight I must say that both Presidents Clinton and Bush should have listened to him more and heeded his advice. Had they done so, either one, I have no doubt that our discussions here would be much different today, but that's a subject for another thread I think.
Richard Clarke turned out to be right about Al Qaeda and OBL and he tried in his capacity as an advisor to the President to warn us about them, but the urgency of his warnings wasn't heeded and instead decisions were made in the context of the times that existed prior to the tragedy of 9/11. Within the context of the times following that day, it is apparent that his advice was right and he's due an "I told you so". It is unfortunate that it comes at a time when partisanship is running on full. Richard Clarke is an angry man because his job was to try and prevent a 9/11 and he couldn't. He tried like to hell to prevent it, but people wouldn't listen to him.
Richard Clarke turned out to be right about Al Qaeda and OBL and he tried in his capacity as an advisor to the President to warn us about them, but the urgency of his warnings wasn't heeded and instead decisions were made in the context of the times that existed prior to the tragedy of 9/11. Within the context of the times following that day, it is apparent that his advice was right and he's due an "I told you so". It is unfortunate that it comes at a time when partisanship is running on full. Richard Clarke is an angry man because his job was to try and prevent a 9/11 and he couldn't. He tried like to hell to prevent it, but people wouldn't listen to him.
Good on ya, Aquilla.
It is also worth mentioning that Clarke is the only member of the administration who has yet apologized to the families of the victims of the September 11 attack for having failed to have done even more.Also, for what it's worth, Clarke is saying of himself exactly what I was saying of him months ago on this forum:
QUOTE
Following the attack on the USS Cole, Clinton went further. He put his national Anti-terrorism Coordinator, Richard Clarke, in charge of coming up with a comprehensive plan to take out al-Qaeda. Clarke put together a strategy paper by December of 2000 which, according to a cover story in Time magazine (August 12, 2002) included breaking up al-Qaeda cells and arresting their members, attacking financial support for its activities, freezing its assets, giving aid to Uzbekistan, the philippines, and Yemen, to assist their combatting of al-Qaeda, and to increase covert activities in Afghanistan to eliminate training camps and rout out Osama bin Laden. He proposed increasing support for the Northern Alliance and putting Special Forces on the ground...
To prevent the counter-terrorist work which had begun during his administration from being disrupted or abandoned, Clinton had his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, organize ten briefings for Condoleeza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. In a meeting with Rice on terrorism, Berger himself said, "You're going to spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally, and al-Qaeda specifically, than any other issue." Richard Clarke then presented his strategy and Rice was impressed enough to keep him on as the counter-terrorism czar. Clarke shared the same strategy with Dick Cheney during his first days in office. Unfortunately, the Bush administration had higher priorities than combatting terror - like the missile defense shield. And, despite Clarke's subsequent efforts, his plan was ignored (until after the September 11 attack, when they finally got around to implementing Clinton's strategy, and Clarke was demoted to make way for the eminently qualified Tom Ridge).
To prevent the counter-terrorist work which had begun during his administration from being disrupted or abandoned, Clinton had his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, organize ten briefings for Condoleeza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. In a meeting with Rice on terrorism, Berger himself said, "You're going to spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally, and al-Qaeda specifically, than any other issue." Richard Clarke then presented his strategy and Rice was impressed enough to keep him on as the counter-terrorism czar. Clarke shared the same strategy with Dick Cheney during his first days in office. Unfortunately, the Bush administration had higher priorities than combatting terror - like the missile defense shield. And, despite Clarke's subsequent efforts, his plan was ignored (until after the September 11 attack, when they finally got around to implementing Clinton's strategy, and Clarke was demoted to make way for the eminently qualified Tom Ridge).
For those following the story, there is nothing new - or untrue - in Clarke's book.
That said, the more important issue in Against All Enemies (as Clarke himself has stated) is not the what White House did - or failed to do - before September 11, but what the White House has done - and failed to do - since September 11. And that is to cripple the war on terror by pursuing the pre-ordained war on Iraq. Tragically, it looks as though Clarke is playing the role of Cassandra yet again.
Rather than criticizing the man, it's about time we started listening to him.
Wow, great thread, I missed out on a lot in here.
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
As to some of the points brought up in this thread.
I think Clarke misspoke when he claimed that the Bush administration did nothing in terms of Al Qaeda. But putting a five year plan into action and actually doing something are different things.
In regards to the behind closed doors testimony, I saw Nancy Pelosi (sp?) on CNN this evening and she said that she did not see a contradiction between his current public testimony and earlier testimony that she attended that was behind closed doors.
As to directly answering the question. For this part,
What's going on here?
It seems to be another character assassination with the weight of the presidency behind it against someone who spoke out against the party line.
As for the second part
Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
I think Clarke may have been able to deal with the failures of intelligence leading up to 9-11. He played the role of chicken little and was unable to help prevent what it was his job to prevent. But let's look at October 2002, what happened from there. The snippets of testimony I saw tonight showed him complaining about the 900 pound gorilla that happened between OCt 2002 and today, the War in Iraq. I think that is what changed since October of 2002.
I don't see any black and white truths and lies here. I think that Clarke's views deserve a full hearing on their merits. If he was trying to deceive the public before or now he should be castigated for it, but I see no need to try to shout him down.
He is an expert in this field, and we should listen to our expert voices.
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
As to some of the points brought up in this thread.
I think Clarke misspoke when he claimed that the Bush administration did nothing in terms of Al Qaeda. But putting a five year plan into action and actually doing something are different things.
In regards to the behind closed doors testimony, I saw Nancy Pelosi (sp?) on CNN this evening and she said that she did not see a contradiction between his current public testimony and earlier testimony that she attended that was behind closed doors.
As to directly answering the question. For this part,
What's going on here?
It seems to be another character assassination with the weight of the presidency behind it against someone who spoke out against the party line.
As for the second part
Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
I think Clarke may have been able to deal with the failures of intelligence leading up to 9-11. He played the role of chicken little and was unable to help prevent what it was his job to prevent. But let's look at October 2002, what happened from there. The snippets of testimony I saw tonight showed him complaining about the 900 pound gorilla that happened between OCt 2002 and today, the War in Iraq. I think that is what changed since October of 2002.
I don't see any black and white truths and lies here. I think that Clarke's views deserve a full hearing on their merits. If he was trying to deceive the public before or now he should be castigated for it, but I see no need to try to shout him down.
He is an expert in this field, and we should listen to our expert voices.
As far as inconsistent stories, his answer is completely plausible. As I stated earlier, we act like politicians don't spin issues to the point of practically lying, but hold Clarke to a different standard. I found this exchange between Clarke and Governor Jim Thompson. It completely supports my contention that what they say in office is always different from outside of office:
QUOTE
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
QUOTE
I think Clarke misspoke when he claimed that the Bush administration did nothing in terms of Al Qaeda. But putting a five year plan into action and actually doing something are different things.
I've seen this idea before, a plan is one thing, doing something is another. As I understand it, in 7 months the White house analysed what the Clinton Administration was doing and was considering. They developed a plan, which included things the Clinton Administration was doing and addressed ways to deal with issues that where up to that point undecided. Then they finalized the plan and sent it to the President for his approval. The President got this plan for his approval in the fist week of September 2001.
How much of this plan could we really have expected the White house to enact in less then a week?
As I have said before. I have issues with the white house and I am by no means a Bush supporter but it seems to me we are asking the impossible. Washington NEVER moves fast, and neither does the Military when it comes to planning and new ideas. Since Sept 11 that has changed somewhat, but it took a horror like that to get politicians on all sides at important issues like terrorism from the point of view of the good of the country without the over-riding point of view of the good of their political office. That was the standard operating procedure in Washington before 9/11.
If Clark really wanted to impress me he would take every penny he is making from this book and give it to the 911 families. Then mabe I would believe dome of his statements.
I think it is WAY too coicicidental that his book came out on the eve of his testimony and none of the major news networks except Fox decided to play the damning statements contradicting him. Something stinks here and I don't think it's the Bush administration.
I think it is WAY too coicicidental that his book came out on the eve of his testimony and none of the major news networks except Fox decided to play the damning statements contradicting him. Something stinks here and I don't think it's the Bush administration.
That Bush dropped the ball to some degree on 9/11 is not news, so did everyone else. Its Clarkes opinion that the war in Iraq damaged the war on terror that really skeeves the administration and they apparently cant afford to let him get away with it. I think they are only selling more books for Clarke with their daily high-level denials.
Whats funny is that fmr Treasury Sec ONeill said something similar in his book but was more easily dismissed with a "he was out of the loop" defense yet Cheney used the *exact same* attack against Clarke. How can your Terrorism Czar be "out of the loop"? duh.
As far as spewing the party line while in the government, thats a given. In the ONeill book he describes having to go to "conferences" that were really just photo ops/political rallies and say things that he didnt really believe to support his boss. Thats life in the working world for everybody. You can pretend you dont understand, thats fine, but its something most working adults are familiar with.
Whats funny is that fmr Treasury Sec ONeill said something similar in his book but was more easily dismissed with a "he was out of the loop" defense yet Cheney used the *exact same* attack against Clarke. How can your Terrorism Czar be "out of the loop"? duh.
As far as spewing the party line while in the government, thats a given. In the ONeill book he describes having to go to "conferences" that were really just photo ops/political rallies and say things that he didnt really believe to support his boss. Thats life in the working world for everybody. You can pretend you dont understand, thats fine, but its something most working adults are familiar with.
I also agreed with Aquilla's first post to this thread.
I am not trying to disparage the character of Richard Clarke. I am trying to figure out what really happened.
But when Clarke says on 60 Minutes:
Or he says in his book:
Ex-Adviser Says Bush Ignored Terror Threats
"Ignored" and "did nothing" are very serious charges. Charges which I want to know whether or not are true.
The problem with saying he did nothing is he already has stated that Bush did something.
Maybe by nothing he meant that the planning had not been put into action. But Clarke himself has already explained bureaucratic and change-of-administration delays.
To me, saying Bush "did nothing" or "ignored" the threat of terrorism is vastly different from saying "there were un-necessary delays" or "we could have moved faster" or even "terrorism was not given the priority that it should have been given" (Clarke has made the last statement).
If I were to ask Clarke one direct question, it would be "Do you think the Bush administration is directly culpable for what happened on 9/11?"
I would love to hear his answer to that one.
I am not trying to disparage the character of Richard Clarke. I am trying to figure out what really happened.
But when Clarke says on 60 Minutes:
QUOTE
"I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe,"
Or he says in his book:
QUOTE
CBS said Clarke asserts in his book, "Against All Enemies," that Bush ignored ominous intelligence "chatter" in the summer of 2001 about possible terror attacks, but Bush's National Security counsel, Stephen Hadley, said Bush did hear those warnings and was impatient for intelligence chiefs to develop a new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.
Ex-Adviser Says Bush Ignored Terror Threats
"Ignored" and "did nothing" are very serious charges. Charges which I want to know whether or not are true.
The problem with saying he did nothing is he already has stated that Bush did something.
Maybe by nothing he meant that the planning had not been put into action. But Clarke himself has already explained bureaucratic and change-of-administration delays.
To me, saying Bush "did nothing" or "ignored" the threat of terrorism is vastly different from saying "there were un-necessary delays" or "we could have moved faster" or even "terrorism was not given the priority that it should have been given" (Clarke has made the last statement).
If I were to ask Clarke one direct question, it would be "Do you think the Bush administration is directly culpable for what happened on 9/11?"
I would love to hear his answer to that one.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 26 2004, 10:31 AM)
If I were to ask Clarke one direct question, it would be "Do you think the Bush administration is directly culpable for what happened on 9/11?"
I would love to hear his answer to that one.
I would love to hear his answer to that one.
I heard him asked a similar question on... I don't know, Face the Nation or Larry King Live or something (it's been a busy book tour
) - and he said NO, the Bush administration was not directly responsible for the attack, but that, in his opinion, there was a lot more that could - and should - have been done. He expressed similar frustration with the Clinton administration, that more should have been done sooner. And, sorry, he didn't say that the Clinton administration was responsible for the attack either. 
QUOTE(Wertz @ Mar 26 2004, 11:55 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 26 2004, 10:31 AM)
If I were to ask Clarke one direct question, it would be "Do you think the Bush administration is directly culpable for what happened on 9/11?"
I would love to hear his answer to that one.
I would love to hear his answer to that one.
I heard him asked a similar question on... I don't know, Face the Nation or Larry King Live or something (it's been a busy book tour
) - and he said NO, the Bush administration was not directly responsible for the attack, but that, in his opinion, there was a lot more that could - and should - have been done. He expressed similar frustration with the Clinton administration, that more should have been done sooner. And, sorry, he didn't say that the Clinton administration was responsible for the attack either. From what I saw of the hearings, that seemed to be the concensus of just about everyone.
It wasn't Bush's fault, it wasn't Clinton's fault. For each, in their time, the administrations had done pretty much all that could be done, with the information that top leaders had.
Mistakes happen. People get innured to a constant barrage of warnings, and when many of them fail to materialize, become a little more lax in follow-up. I really believe that this is what happened, up and down the chain of command, in each of the administrations. Could more have been done at the Executive levels? Maybe, maybe not.
As I said in a previous post, we have to stop terrorists 100% of the time to be seen as "successful". As we've seen in Spain, they only need one or two successful strikes a year, to keep the fear and outrage fueled.
And what seems to be clear, is that even current administration officials, in testimony to the 9/11 Commission, agree that at the time, both administrations did everything that they could do. It was either being done, or was in the process of being implimented.
From Colin Powell's testimony:
QUOTE
The September 11 attacks had changed radically the environment in which we were operating – the eyes of the Nation and the world were suddenly and dramatically opened to the peril we faced. As a result, our options -- diplomatic and other -- for combating terrorism had expanded enormously.
Most significantly, as we were clearly at war and no longer pursuing what many had before characterized as aberrant criminals best pursued by law enforcement means, the use of decisive lethal force became a real option. At the same time, I want to emphasize, we found much greater receptivity to our non-military efforts – financial, law enforcement, intelligencesharing,and diplomatic efforts in particular. Since September 11, using all of those instruments is precisely what we have been doing.
Most significantly, as we were clearly at war and no longer pursuing what many had before characterized as aberrant criminals best pursued by law enforcement means, the use of decisive lethal force became a real option. At the same time, I want to emphasize, we found much greater receptivity to our non-military efforts – financial, law enforcement, intelligencesharing,and diplomatic efforts in particular. Since September 11, using all of those instruments is precisely what we have been doing.
And this:
QUOTE
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, Members of the Commission, I want to leave you with my thoughts on what I consider a fundamental of terrorism -- and it is a frightening fundamental but one that we must all face, every American, and every member of the civilized world.
That fundamental is this: sometimes, you can do almost everything right and still suffer grievous losses from terrorist attacks.
The recent train bombings in Spain demonstrate this tragic but inescapable fact. Spanish authorities were well prepared. Prior to the bombings, they were deeply concerned -- and said so publicly -- that spectacular terrorist attacks were being planned in the lead-up to the Spanish elections. --
Nonetheless, and despite all their best efforts and all their precautions, Spain still suffered these horrific attacks that produced such terrible casualties. Before this war is won, there will be more such attacks.
That fundamental is this: sometimes, you can do almost everything right and still suffer grievous losses from terrorist attacks.
The recent train bombings in Spain demonstrate this tragic but inescapable fact. Spanish authorities were well prepared. Prior to the bombings, they were deeply concerned -- and said so publicly -- that spectacular terrorist attacks were being planned in the lead-up to the Spanish elections. --
Nonetheless, and despite all their best efforts and all their precautions, Spain still suffered these horrific attacks that produced such terrible casualties. Before this war is won, there will be more such attacks.
And from Donald Rumsfeld:
QUOTE
First, I must say, I know of no intelligence during the roughly six plus months leading up to September 11th that indicated terrorists intended to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into the Pentagon or the World Trade Towers. If we had had such information, we could have acted on it --
Further, I believe that the actions taken since September 11th in the global war on terror, and the international coalition assembled to fight that war, would have been impossible to achieve before the September 11th attacks.
Think about it: after September 11th, the President made the decision not simply to launch cruise missile strikes as the U.S. had previously tried. Rather, he decided to deal decisively with the terrorist network responsible for the attack - and to hold not only the perpetrators to account, but also the regime that had
harbored, aided, and supported them as they trained, planned, and executed their attacks.--
These were bold steps – and today, in light of September 11th, no one questions those actions. Today, I suspect most would support a pre-emptive action to deal with such a threat, if it had been possible to see it coming.
But imagine for a moment that we were back before September 11, 2001. Imagine that a U.S. President had looked at the information then available, and gone before the Congress and the world, and said: “We need to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network,” based on what little was known before September 11th.
How many countries would have joined in a coalition? Many? Any? Not likely.
We likely would have heard objections to “pre-emption” similar to those voiced before the Coalition launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. We would have been asked:
• Where is the “smoking gun?”
• How can we attack Afghanistan when it was al-Qaeda that attacked us?
• Aren’t North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or Libya more immediate threats than Afghanistan?
• Shouldn’t overthrowing the Taliban regime be the last step, not the first?
• Why can't we just take out terrorist training camps?
• If we go to war in Afghanistan, does it mean the U.S. will now go to war with every state that harbors terrorists before they have threatened us?
• Should we go to war when there is no international consensus behind ousting the Taliban regime by force?
• Wouldn’t U.S. intervention enrage the Muslim world and increase support for the terrorists?
• How can we go to war when not one country in the region publicly supports us, and many seem to be opposed?
• Wouldn’t the U.S. get bogged down in an expensive, dangerous long-term military occupation?
• Wouldn’t we open ourselves to the risk that other rogue regimes might take advantage of the fact that the U.S. is tied up in Afghanistan to invade neighbors or cause other mischief?
• Won’t launching a pre-emptive strike simply provoke more terrorist attacks against the U.S.?
• If the Taliban and al-Qaeda knew we intended to overthrow their regime and destroy their network, what would they have to lose by launching a catastrophic attack in the U.S.?
Those are essentially objections that were raised against military action in Iraq. And they were voiced after September 11th, in a nation that already had experienced the loss of 3,000 innocent men, women and children to a surprise attack.
Imagine the outcry any U.S. President would have faced had he proposed what would have been labeled a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan before the experience of September 11th.
Unfortunately, history shows that it can take a tragedy like September 11th to awaken the world to new threats – and to the need for action -- and even then there are different views.
Further, I believe that the actions taken since September 11th in the global war on terror, and the international coalition assembled to fight that war, would have been impossible to achieve before the September 11th attacks.
Think about it: after September 11th, the President made the decision not simply to launch cruise missile strikes as the U.S. had previously tried. Rather, he decided to deal decisively with the terrorist network responsible for the attack - and to hold not only the perpetrators to account, but also the regime that had
harbored, aided, and supported them as they trained, planned, and executed their attacks.--
These were bold steps – and today, in light of September 11th, no one questions those actions. Today, I suspect most would support a pre-emptive action to deal with such a threat, if it had been possible to see it coming.
But imagine for a moment that we were back before September 11, 2001. Imagine that a U.S. President had looked at the information then available, and gone before the Congress and the world, and said: “We need to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network,” based on what little was known before September 11th.
How many countries would have joined in a coalition? Many? Any? Not likely.
We likely would have heard objections to “pre-emption” similar to those voiced before the Coalition launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. We would have been asked:
• Where is the “smoking gun?”
• How can we attack Afghanistan when it was al-Qaeda that attacked us?
• Aren’t North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or Libya more immediate threats than Afghanistan?
• Shouldn’t overthrowing the Taliban regime be the last step, not the first?
• Why can't we just take out terrorist training camps?
• If we go to war in Afghanistan, does it mean the U.S. will now go to war with every state that harbors terrorists before they have threatened us?
• Should we go to war when there is no international consensus behind ousting the Taliban regime by force?
• Wouldn’t U.S. intervention enrage the Muslim world and increase support for the terrorists?
• How can we go to war when not one country in the region publicly supports us, and many seem to be opposed?
• Wouldn’t the U.S. get bogged down in an expensive, dangerous long-term military occupation?
• Wouldn’t we open ourselves to the risk that other rogue regimes might take advantage of the fact that the U.S. is tied up in Afghanistan to invade neighbors or cause other mischief?
• Won’t launching a pre-emptive strike simply provoke more terrorist attacks against the U.S.?
• If the Taliban and al-Qaeda knew we intended to overthrow their regime and destroy their network, what would they have to lose by launching a catastrophic attack in the U.S.?
Those are essentially objections that were raised against military action in Iraq. And they were voiced after September 11th, in a nation that already had experienced the loss of 3,000 innocent men, women and children to a surprise attack.
Imagine the outcry any U.S. President would have faced had he proposed what would have been labeled a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan before the experience of September 11th.
Unfortunately, history shows that it can take a tragedy like September 11th to awaken the world to new threats – and to the need for action -- and even then there are different views.
As Aquilla said so eloquently:
QUOTE
Richard Clarke turned out to be right about Al Qaeda and OBL and he tried in his capacity as an advisor to the President to warn us about them, but the urgency of his warnings wasn't heeded and instead decisions were made in the context of the times that existed prior to the tragedy of 9/11. Within the context of the times following that day, it is apparent that his advice was right and he's due an "I told you so". --
We (our leaders) screwed up, Bush screwed up, Clinton screwed up, but stuff like that happens in a bureaucracy every day, that's the nature of the beast. The problem now facing us is to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
We (our leaders) screwed up, Bush screwed up, Clinton screwed up, but stuff like that happens in a bureaucracy every day, that's the nature of the beast. The problem now facing us is to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
That may be best accomplished by listening better to the people, like Richard Clarke, we pay to know and understand this stuff.
And now GOP leaders want to declassify Clarke's earlier testimony:
GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony
So... let me get this straight: something is classified as secret so that the average person doesn't learn national security secrets about our country and the Republicans want to "out" it for their own political purposes???
The Republicans are running scared on this issue. And that's not necessarily a good thing for this country.
GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony
QUOTE
WASHINGTON - Key Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush's handling of the war on terror.
So... let me get this straight: something is classified as secret so that the average person doesn't learn national security secrets about our country and the Republicans want to "out" it for their own political purposes???
The Republicans are running scared on this issue. And that's not necessarily a good thing for this country.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Mar 26 2004, 11:55 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 26 2004, 10:31 AM)
If I were to ask Clarke one direct question, it would be "Do you think the Bush administration is directly culpable for what happened on 9/11?"
I would love to hear his answer to that one.
I would love to hear his answer to that one.
I heard him asked a similar question on... I don't know, Face the Nation or Larry King Live or something (it's been a busy book tour
) - and he said NO, the Bush administration was not directly responsible for the attack, but that, in his opinion, there was a lot more that could - and should - have been done. So when the Reuters headline is:
"Ex-Adviser Says Bush Ignored Terror Threats"
What are we to make of that? Is it media bias if that is really NOT what he said?
Of course, he DID say that, so...
Maybe he said it and didn't really mean it...
Maybe his definition of "ignore" and "did nothing" are different from the generally accepted one?
Again, I agree with Aquilla's stance here...Clarke wanted more done. Clarke had developed a plan, and then had to "re-develop" it after the change of administrations.
But Clarke also said that Bush was pushing forward with getting Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, even if it took military action. He also said that the budget included a five fold increase for intelligence directed at Al Qaeda.
What exactly was the "more" in "could have done more"?
As Rumsfeld pointed out: pre-9/11, a military solution was out of the question.
As Rumsfeld pointed out : had anyone proposed going into Afghanistan in early 2001, wouldn't there have been a dozen others saying : why not Iraq, Iran, Syria, or North Korea first?
You know what, this question deserves its own debate thread...I will start one.
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
The duty and obligation of this particular 911 Commission is not to place blame and punish unless of course, they discover and can prove that witnesses lied under oath whether it be in public or private testimony. Every witness testifying in public and behind closed doors takes an oath to tell the truth to the very best of his/her knowledge. This includes Condi Rice's four hours of testimony behind closed doors. Latest word is that she is to go before the Commission (under oath and behind closed doors) again and follow-up as many times necessary to clarify some misstatements and fuzzy memories, and if requested to answer additional questions the Commissions' panel may have.
The mission statement of the 911 Committee per link:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
When I heard and read Richard Clarke's testimony before the 911 Commission, I think a major part of his testimony provided the panel with constructive criticism, facts, and his overall recollection of events. He answered, to the best of his knowledge and recollections, the questions put forth to him by the members on the panel. There were statements made by Clarke that I am in total disagreement with and some IMO that were not stated with the best interests of the 911 victims/families at heart.
Much new and additional old information (with no doubt of more to come) has been gathered since 2002. Things change overtime in one's recollections, focus, opinions, facts, and personal/professional motivations.
Mr. Clarke's book and personal interviews leave no doubt in most minds that his perceptions, beliefs, distastes including his frustrations with people, events, decisions/ lack of, etc. during his tenure of serving several administrations (especially the current one) is chockfull of expanded commentaries with sprinkles of scurrilous personal attacks and name calling. IMO rather than his recollection of events and facts, his opinions, and his criticisms...it was the insulting personal attacks and name calling that got him into deep waters. And let's be honest, Mr. Clarke is no young bunny in the Washington scene and if he is going to throw out insults...he should expect people to defend themselves and maybe in doing so, they throw some back. Human nature...professional no, but true nevertheless.
Remember all the media hype about Powell, Rumsfeld or Rice and others disagreeing on issues? Actually, according to the media, they were having serious quarrels among themselves. That to me sounds like a group of people that have the freedom of forming opinions, expressing them, and even debating them. Doesn't sound like to me that Bush is cracking the whip or attempting to stifle the debate among his cabinet and staff. In fact, on occasions, I have heard CNN reporters say that the President likes open discussions and debate among his administration. It 's when things turn ugly and petty that he gets aggravated and impatient.
To find out what happened and what can be done to prevent another possible 911 is their mission. But as former Secretary of State, Albright pointed out to the panel on the Commission and they seemed to agree, the 911 Commission shouldn't be on a hunt to place blame but to find out "the whys and wherefores."
Here are a couple of links to the long and sorted reasons for Separation of Powers that many Presidents have referred to and used during their time in office. I imagine Nixon's and Clinton's legal representatives referred to them often.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/delly.htm#N_1_
As I mentioned above...regardless of whether testimony is given in private or in public....everyone is under oath by swearing before the committee members that they swear to tell the truth to the best of their ability. So, Condi isn't afraid of telling her side under oath. And she isn't shy in front of the public....but the others testifying are cabinet members...and are not bound by the laws of separation of powers. Richard Clarke is no longer with the government, and his last position was staff level and not cabinet level so he isn't bound by the laws of separation of powers.
Now Condi Rice...is not a cabinet member but a staff member and she is not protected by the laws of separation of powers. Therefore, for her to testify under oath in a public forum before the panel, by law President Bush would have to give his approval by an executive order which he is not going to do. Condi Rice does not want to risk abusing the constitutional laws of Separation of Powers.
One thing about it...good or bad....the Commission will reach a conclusion and any misstatements or fuzzy memories will get corrected and refreshed before it is all over.
The duty and obligation of this particular 911 Commission is not to place blame and punish unless of course, they discover and can prove that witnesses lied under oath whether it be in public or private testimony. Every witness testifying in public and behind closed doors takes an oath to tell the truth to the very best of his/her knowledge. This includes Condi Rice's four hours of testimony behind closed doors. Latest word is that she is to go before the Commission (under oath and behind closed doors) again and follow-up as many times necessary to clarify some misstatements and fuzzy memories, and if requested to answer additional questions the Commissions' panel may have.
The mission statement of the 911 Committee per link:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
QUOTE
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.
When I heard and read Richard Clarke's testimony before the 911 Commission, I think a major part of his testimony provided the panel with constructive criticism, facts, and his overall recollection of events. He answered, to the best of his knowledge and recollections, the questions put forth to him by the members on the panel. There were statements made by Clarke that I am in total disagreement with and some IMO that were not stated with the best interests of the 911 victims/families at heart.
Much new and additional old information (with no doubt of more to come) has been gathered since 2002. Things change overtime in one's recollections, focus, opinions, facts, and personal/professional motivations.
Mr. Clarke's book and personal interviews leave no doubt in most minds that his perceptions, beliefs, distastes including his frustrations with people, events, decisions/ lack of, etc. during his tenure of serving several administrations (especially the current one) is chockfull of expanded commentaries with sprinkles of scurrilous personal attacks and name calling. IMO rather than his recollection of events and facts, his opinions, and his criticisms...it was the insulting personal attacks and name calling that got him into deep waters. And let's be honest, Mr. Clarke is no young bunny in the Washington scene and if he is going to throw out insults...he should expect people to defend themselves and maybe in doing so, they throw some back. Human nature...professional no, but true nevertheless.
QUOTE
And Aquilla, while I appreciate your analogy, I think a good boss, like a good president, doesn't stifle debate within his or her management circle. quarkhead
Remember all the media hype about Powell, Rumsfeld or Rice and others disagreeing on issues? Actually, according to the media, they were having serious quarrels among themselves. That to me sounds like a group of people that have the freedom of forming opinions, expressing them, and even debating them. Doesn't sound like to me that Bush is cracking the whip or attempting to stifle the debate among his cabinet and staff. In fact, on occasions, I have heard CNN reporters say that the President likes open discussions and debate among his administration. It 's when things turn ugly and petty that he gets aggravated and impatient.
QUOTE
Now that the 9/11 commission is trying to find out what happened and who is possibly to blame Paladin Elspeth
To find out what happened and what can be done to prevent another possible 911 is their mission. But as former Secretary of State, Albright pointed out to the panel on the Commission and they seemed to agree, the 911 Commission shouldn't be on a hunt to place blame but to find out "the whys and wherefores."
QUOTE
Would somebody please tell me how Condoleezza Rice testifying under oath publicly before the 9/11 Commission would compromise the separation of government powers??? Does ANYBODY know the answer to this question? And Condoleezza Rice didn't even have the stones to address the 9/11 Commission under oath in a public hearing to refute him. Looks like she's afraid of publicly making statements under oath. WHY? Paladin Elspeth
Here are a couple of links to the long and sorted reasons for Separation of Powers that many Presidents have referred to and used during their time in office. I imagine Nixon's and Clinton's legal representatives referred to them often.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/delly.htm#N_1_
QUOTE
As I mentioned above...regardless of whether testimony is given in private or in public....everyone is under oath by swearing before the committee members that they swear to tell the truth to the best of their ability. So, Condi isn't afraid of telling her side under oath. And she isn't shy in front of the public....but the others testifying are cabinet members...and are not bound by the laws of separation of powers. Richard Clarke is no longer with the government, and his last position was staff level and not cabinet level so he isn't bound by the laws of separation of powers.
Now Condi Rice...is not a cabinet member but a staff member and she is not protected by the laws of separation of powers. Therefore, for her to testify under oath in a public forum before the panel, by law President Bush would have to give his approval by an executive order which he is not going to do. Condi Rice does not want to risk abusing the constitutional laws of Separation of Powers.
One thing about it...good or bad....the Commission will reach a conclusion and any misstatements or fuzzy memories will get corrected and refreshed before it is all over.
QUOTE
Every witness testifying in public and behind closed doors takes an oath to tell the truth to the very best of his/her knowledge. This includes Condi Rice's four hours of testimony behind closed doors. Latest word is that she is to go before the Commission (under oath and behind closed doors) again and follow-up as many times necessary to clarify some misstatements and fuzzy memories, and if requested to answer additional questions the Commissions' panel may have.
I think you may be technically right that every time someone "testifies" they are under oath, public and private. But some administration officials have been "interviewed", which near as I can tell is not under oath. I may be wrong about this, as I was unable to find any official word from the 9-11 commission or its members stating one way or the other. But press accounts claim that Condi Rice is seeking to interview with the commission again, while not under oath. Do you have any sources that suggest differently?
QUOTE
Rice may not get her wish, however, because the commission could insist that any new appearance, even if in private, be conducted under oath. A source familiar with the commission’s operations told NBC News that the panel has consistently required anyone rebutting sworn testimony to be similarly under oath.
Rice has come under heavy criticism for refusing to testify under oath or in public. She said Wednesday on “NBC Nightly News” that she had a responsibility to protect the president’s constitutional guarantee of executive privilege, arguing that the president could not rely on his advisers to speak to him openly if they could be questioned about their advice to him.
Rice has come under heavy criticism for refusing to testify under oath or in public. She said Wednesday on “NBC Nightly News” that she had a responsibility to protect the president’s constitutional guarantee of executive privilege, arguing that the president could not rely on his advisers to speak to him openly if they could be questioned about their advice to him.
QUOTE(Desert Resident @ Mar 26 2004, 04:27 PM)
The duty and obligation of this particular 911 Commission is not to place blame and punish unless of course, they discover and can prove that witnesses lied under oath whether it be in public or private testimony. Every witness testifying in public and behind closed doors takes an oath to tell the truth to the very best of his/her knowledge. This includes Condi Rice's four hours of testimony behind closed doors. Latest word is that she is to go before the Commission (under oath and behind closed doors) again and follow-up as many times necessary to clarify some misstatements and fuzzy memories, and if requested to answer additional questions the Commissions' panel may have.
Here are a couple of links to the long and sorted reasons for Separation of Powers that many Presidents have referred to and used during their time in office. I imagine Nixon's and Clinton's legal representatives referred to them often.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/delly.htm#N_1_
As I mentioned above...regardless of whether testimony is given in private or in public....everyone is under oath by swearing before the committee members that they swear to tell the truth to the best of their ability. So, Condi isn't afraid of telling her side under oath. And she isn't shy in front of the public....but the others testifying are cabinet members...and are not bound by the laws of separation of powers. Richard Clarke is no longer with the government, and his last position was staff level and not cabinet level so he isn't bound by the laws of separation of powers.
Now Condi Rice...is not a cabinet member but a staff member and she is not protected by the laws of separation of powers. Therefore, for her to testify under oath in a public forum before the panel, by law President Bush would have to give his approval by an executive order which he is not going to do. Condi Rice does not want to risk abusing the constitutional laws of Separation of Powers.
QUOTE
Would somebody please tell me how Condoleezza Rice testifying under oath publicly before the 9/11 Commission would compromise the separation of government powers??? Does ANYBODY know the answer to this question? And Condoleezza Rice didn't even have the stones to address the 9/11 Commission under oath in a public hearing to refute him. Looks like she's afraid of publicly making statements under oath. WHY? Paladin Elspeth
Here are a couple of links to the long and sorted reasons for Separation of Powers that many Presidents have referred to and used during their time in office. I imagine Nixon's and Clinton's legal representatives referred to them often.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/delly.htm#N_1_
QUOTE
As I mentioned above...regardless of whether testimony is given in private or in public....everyone is under oath by swearing before the committee members that they swear to tell the truth to the best of their ability. So, Condi isn't afraid of telling her side under oath. And she isn't shy in front of the public....but the others testifying are cabinet members...and are not bound by the laws of separation of powers. Richard Clarke is no longer with the government, and his last position was staff level and not cabinet level so he isn't bound by the laws of separation of powers.
Now Condi Rice...is not a cabinet member but a staff member and she is not protected by the laws of separation of powers. Therefore, for her to testify under oath in a public forum before the panel, by law President Bush would have to give his approval by an executive order which he is not going to do. Condi Rice does not want to risk abusing the constitutional laws of Separation of Powers.
Desert Resident, I believe you are incorrect about Condoleeza Rice's discussions with the 9/11 Commission.
Condi Rice's prior four hours privately with the Commission were not under oath. This was agreed to by the Commission, after about a month of wrangling with her, simply to get input from her. The cite to this can be found here.
QUOTE
In a Feb. 3 interview the newly minted commission member Bob Kerrey, the former Senator from Nebraska, now the president of the New School University, said that Ms. Rice’s interview will not be held under oath, and the results of the interview are not to be made public.
Notice now that Richard Clarke has testified under oath, that Dr. Rice is offering to go in front of the commission again, to "clarify positions and information", and she wants the same deal she had before -- namely, private discussions, and not under oath. However, since Clarke's testimony was under oath, the Commission is far less likely to allow that this time: This from an MSNBC Story:
QUOTE
Rice may not get her wish, however, because the commission could insist that any new appearance, even if in private, be conducted under oath. A source familiar with the commission’s operations told NBC News that the panel has consistently required anyone rebutting sworn testimony to be similarly under oath.
I also find it funny that she won't sit under oath and tell the commission what these "clarifications" are, but she is more than willing to go on every friendly talk show, and write op-ed pieces in the Washington Post, complaining all the way about how she and President Bush have been mis-characterized. Condi's not afraid to testify under oath? Doesn't look that way to me...
Long thread which I came to late so I haven't read it....
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
It's quite simple. He was on the White House payroll in 2002 and dissenting voices from within the administration whilst from current employees of the administration are basically non-existant. Once he left his role he could say what he wanted.
Now someone who's worked for Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 must have a pretty authoritative view on policies. He thinks Bush messed up royally. Who am I to argue?
It must have incensed him to see Bush running primarily on his anti-terrorism credentials. He wasn't going to retire without his imbecile former boss getting some balancing statements from him. About time we heard something like this from a civil servant. A non-partisan voice of huge experience and authority, someone middle America ignores at its peril.
Schooly
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
It's quite simple. He was on the White House payroll in 2002 and dissenting voices from within the administration whilst from current employees of the administration are basically non-existant. Once he left his role he could say what he wanted.
Now someone who's worked for Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 must have a pretty authoritative view on policies. He thinks Bush messed up royally. Who am I to argue?
It must have incensed him to see Bush running primarily on his anti-terrorism credentials. He wasn't going to retire without his imbecile former boss getting some balancing statements from him. About time we heard something like this from a civil servant. A non-partisan voice of huge experience and authority, someone middle America ignores at its peril.
Schooly
Question for debate: What's going on here? Why has Richard Clarke's portrayal of the Bush administration's attitude toward terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Iraq changed since October 2002?
Maybe the question should be changed to: "Which of Richard Clarke's lies should we believe?" Did he lie before the Senate Intell Panel? Or did he lie before the 9/11 Commission? Or is he lying in both testimonies?
It appears now that his sworn testimony before one group contradicts his sworn teatimony before the other. In fact the Speaker of the House & Senate Majority Leader are now calling for Clarke's testimony before the Senate be declassified so these inconsistancies can be publically aired. Apparently his testimony and his 2002 Briefing to reporters bear a striking resemblance, but differ greatly from his recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Supporters say he was lying then, to stay in good with the administration. One could just as easily say he is lying now, to sell books. Questions I haven't seen asked yet are:
1 - Why was the man who was the Head of Counter Terrorism under three presidents passed over for the number two job at the Dept of Homeland security?
2 - Why was he demoted?
3 - Why was he put out of the loop?
IMO, the guy is selling books and getting revenge on the people who couldn't see just how important to them he really was. Just an opinion, but having watched all of the testimony available, that is the impression I walked away with.
1SG
Maybe the question should be changed to: "Which of Richard Clarke's lies should we believe?" Did he lie before the Senate Intell Panel? Or did he lie before the 9/11 Commission? Or is he lying in both testimonies?
It appears now that his sworn testimony before one group contradicts his sworn teatimony before the other. In fact the Speaker of the House & Senate Majority Leader are now calling for Clarke's testimony before the Senate be declassified so these inconsistancies can be publically aired. Apparently his testimony and his 2002 Briefing to reporters bear a striking resemblance, but differ greatly from his recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Supporters say he was lying then, to stay in good with the administration. One could just as easily say he is lying now, to sell books. Questions I haven't seen asked yet are:
1 - Why was the man who was the Head of Counter Terrorism under three presidents passed over for the number two job at the Dept of Homeland security?
2 - Why was he demoted?
3 - Why was he put out of the loop?
IMO, the guy is selling books and getting revenge on the people who couldn't see just how important to them he really was. Just an opinion, but having watched all of the testimony available, that is the impression I walked away with.
1SG
QUOTE
Desert Resident, I believe you are incorrect about Condoleeza Rice's discussions with the 9/11 Commission.
Condi Rice's prior four hours privately with the Commission were not under oath. This was agreed to by the Commission, after about a month of wrangling with her, simply to get input from her. The cite to this can be found here.
QUOTE
In a Feb. 3 interview the newly minted commission member Bob Kerrey, the former Senator from Nebraska, now the president of the New School University, said that Ms. Rice’s interview will not be held under oath, and the results of the interview are not to be made public.
Notice now that Richard Clarke has testified under oath, that Dr. Rice is offering to go in front of the commission again, to "clarify positions and information", and she wants the same deal she had before -- namely, private discussions, and not under oath. However, since Clarke's testimony was under oath, the Commission is far less likely to allow that this time: This from an MSNBC Story:
Rice may not get her wish, however, because the commission could insist that any new appearance, even if in private, be conducted under oath. A source familiar with the commission’s operations told NBC News that the panel has consistently required anyone rebutting sworn testimony to be similarly under oath.
I also find it funny that she won't sit under oath and tell the commission what these "clarifications" are, but she is more than willing to go on every friendly talk show, and write op-ed pieces in the Washington Post, complaining all the way about how she and President Bush have been mis-characterized. Condi's not afraid to testify under oath? Doesn't look that way to me...
Condi Rice's prior four hours privately with the Commission were not under oath. This was agreed to by the Commission, after about a month of wrangling with her, simply to get input from her. The cite to this can be found here.
QUOTE
In a Feb. 3 interview the newly minted commission member Bob Kerrey, the former Senator from Nebraska, now the president of the New School University, said that Ms. Rice’s interview will not be held under oath, and the results of the interview are not to be made public.
Notice now that Richard Clarke has testified under oath, that Dr. Rice is offering to go in front of the commission again, to "clarify positions and information", and she wants the same deal she had before -- namely, private discussions, and not under oath. However, since Clarke's testimony was under oath, the Commission is far less likely to allow that this time: This from an MSNBC Story:
Rice may not get her wish, however, because the commission could insist that any new appearance, even if in private, be conducted under oath. A source familiar with the commission’s operations told NBC News that the panel has consistently required anyone rebutting sworn testimony to be similarly under oath.
I also find it funny that she won't sit under oath and tell the commission what these "clarifications" are, but she is more than willing to go on every friendly talk show, and write op-ed pieces in the Washington Post, complaining all the way about how she and President Bush have been mis-characterized. Condi's not afraid to testify under oath? Doesn't look that way to me...
Safron and Niteguy...Ah, wouldn't you know....there is one exception for testimony under oath and it is Condi Rice, National Security Advisor. Sorry for the error and here is the reason why Condi Rice as the President's National Security Advisor:
QUOTE
During an interview with NBC television, Mr. Gonzales also noted that legally it is not necessary for Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath. He said White House officials are already required to tell the truth.
In the letter to the commission, the White House counsel noted that top presidential advisors never, as a rule, testify before commissions created by Congress. He said that is especially true in the national security area, where much of the advice provided is, and should remain, confidential.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105302/posts
In the letter to the commission, the White House counsel noted that top presidential advisors never, as a rule, testify before commissions created by Congress. He said that is especially true in the national security area, where much of the advice provided is, and should remain, confidential.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105302/posts
I know I saw Albright and Clarke raise their hands to take the oath as they no longer hold a top level position in the government.
QUOTE
Maybe the question should be changed to: "Which of Richard Clarke's lies should we believe?" Did he lie before the Senate Intell Panel? Or did he lie before the 9/11 Commission? Or is he lying in both testimonies?
Don't be so quick to call 'lie' on 'spin' unless you are prepared to call the entirety of Washington 'liars'. Never mind that in the attempt to discredit Clarke that the administration attack dogs have made more contradictions than Richard Clarke ever did.
Have you seen the Senate Intel Panel stuff? I believe it is still classified. Senator Frist has called to declassify it saying that is is contradictory... but Senator Graham said he would be happy to have it declassified in its entirety and that there weren't any contradictions.
So let's see. Let's see the whole thing. I'm with Josh Marshall when he says:
QUOTE
I have no stake in Richard Clarke. I think he's a hero because I'm quite confident (on the basis of very strong evidence) that he's telling the truth and now facing the whirlwind that we all knew these folks would bring against him.
QUOTE(Safron @ Mar 27 2004, 01:41 AM)
Don't be so quick to call 'lie' on 'spin' unless you are prepared to call the entirety of Washington 'liars'. Never mind that in the attempt to discredit Clarke that the administration attack dogs have made than Richard Clarke ever did.
Have you seen the Senate Intel Pane
Have you seen the Senate Intel Pane