The Clarke story is also old news. I have read it all before. Clarke is just the highest level, most credible official to come forward. The real problem that the WH has with Clarke is that this story owns the news this week (and maybe longer). The Iraq Intell investigation will be in full swing shortly. Each tell-all book will likewise own the news cycle for a week. Seeing that those weeks will be closer to the election, they should have more negative political impact on GWB. The haw-haw funny thing about both the 9/11 and Iraq Intell independent investigations is that GWB fought each tooth and nail from starting and drug his feet getting his people to cooperated with the investigation. Thus, they both started later than they could have and will run longer. Both will have a larger impact on the general election, than if GWB had got them going as quick as possible and cooperated in a timely manner. If these investigations are his political ondoing, he only has himself to blame (which may be a first in his life )
I know! that was a catastrophic mistake on Rove's part. Imagine if this had been happening in 2002 like it should have been...Crap, I can't remember what I was doing in March of 02. I think they got a little bit overconfident in their ability to control the agenda (which sort of mirrors some of the Iraq-rebuilding overconfidence etc) and thought they could do it with this too.
Again, Clarke is an idiot... The government's former top counterterrorism adviser testified today that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists while the Bush administration made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue." Richard Clarke told a bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that "although I continued to say it (terrorism) was an urgent problem I don't think it was ever treated that way" by the current administration in advance of the strikes two and a half years ago. His claims were just to boost sales of his crappy book...
Via Josh Marshall... _________________ The campaign to destroy Dick Clarke's credibility is today rolling out (or I should say the White House is rolling out) a background briefing Clarke gave in August 2002. (Needless to say, the White House has taken it off background -- which is in itself reminiscent of this earlier incident. (Excerpts from a Clinton-Barak meeting)Interestingly, the transcript has thus far only appeared on the White House-subservient Fox News network, which may be a point that bears watching.) They've brought this transcript forth because in it Clarke seems to follow some of the same line or spin that the Bush administration is now using against him -- much of it this point about whether there was a 'plan' handed over. Now, I've given it a quick read. And on some points there's not much of a contradiction at all. On other points there are contradictions, though I think one of the issues here is that what now Clarke says the new team ignored wasn't a Clinton administration plan per se, but rather his plan. In any case, the larger point I think is this: Career civil servants working for a given White House do tend to follow that White House's spin when they're giving background briefings. That's hardly a surprise. It's somewhat in the nature of the enterprise. Luckily we don't have to rely on what Clarke said then or what he's saying now. He's now come forward, speaking for himself, with a long list of detailed claims and accusations about the White House's inattention to the terrorism issue during the first eight months of the administration and their desire to wrench the war on terror into a second Iraq war after 9/11. As Fred Kaplan notes in this excellent piece in Slate, if Clarke's claims are factually wrong they should be easily rebuttable -- given that the White House has all the relevant documents and evidence at its disposal. Yet, thus far, they've scarcely made an attempt and have focused all their fire on attacking Clarke personally -- that he was liar and a boob and both out-of-the-loop and responsible for everything that went wrong. That pretty much tells you the whole story. -- Josh Marshall __________________
"Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. I failed you. We tried hard, but we failed you...I ask for your understanding, and your forgiveness." - Richard Clarke, today
Since you know the inner-most thoughts of this "idiot" who has served four presidents (all of them idiots by association?), let me axe you something. Is Clarke wearing boxers or briefs?
bob kerry blasted fox for releasing the interview, since it was originally on deep background (which in my mind tends to add to its veracity). however, the original demand to keep it on deep background was by the NSC. the NSC authorized it's release today, a point (Bob) Kerry neglected to make.
Clarke saying that was the top priortity of the Clinton administration and not Bush's is accurate. The Clinton folk told the Bush Saddam and Al Qaeda were threat number 1. Bush immediately poured money into a missle defense starwars program. So for Bush that obviously wasn't priority #1. We also know that early on long before 9/11 Bush had a meeting_about Iraq. So to the Bush people, Osama and Al Qaeda weren't priority number 1, despite what they were told by the Clinton administration. Call Clarke and idiot if you want, but he was a correct idiot.
btw, clarke suggested today that terrorism was the most important issue in the clinton administration. bin laden has cited the inadequecy of the US response to the attack on the WTC in '93, the khobar towers, the african embassies, and the cole as evidence of our fecklessness. on whose watch did those attacks occur?
well, they're both trailing, but i find it offesive that the only way you can view this issue is through the prism of electoral politics. predictable really, but a regrettable position nonetheless.
"Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. I failed you. We tried hard, but we failed you...I ask for your understanding, and your forgiveness." - Richard Clarke, today
You just accused me of being overly political with this? LOL, yeah, I guess it's my fault, when I saw those flag-draped coffins in the Bush 2004 ads, or the ceremonies at ground zero during the republican nat'l convention....yeah I guess I must be doing that By the way, coming from a guy who starts 2-3 anti-Kerry threads a week, that rings even more hollow than it already did. BTW, basso, I'm still waiting for some factual support for your mischaracterization of Kerry's anti-terrorism policy. Do you have any or were you mistaken?
Well if Osama said it then we should take his word for it. '93 WTC was handled well, and justice was served. But I will say that Clinton did not do enough. Everyone knows that since the terrorists were around for the 9/11 attacks. The 2nd biggest terrorist attack on the U.S. happened during Clinton's watch too. But none of that changes what the Bush administration failed to do after they were in office and received warnings.
There were about a dozen documented threats or actual instances of hijackers attempting to use airliners as guided missiles prior to 9/11, contrary to Condeleeza "Liar Liar" Rice's statements. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html
I think this article hasn't been posted yet. If it has I'll delete it. http://slate.msn.com/id/2097750/ Richard Clarke KOs the Bushies The ex-terrorism official dazzles at the 9/11 commission hearings. By Fred Kaplan Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 3:49 PM PT "You're fired" Richard Clarke made his much-anticipated appearance before the 9/11 commission this afternoon and, right out of the box, delivered a stunning blow to the Bush administration—the political equivalent of a first-round knockout. The blow was so stunning, it took a while to realize that it was a blow. Clarke thanked the members for holding the hearings, saying they finally provided him "a forum where I can apologize" to the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones. He continued, addressing those relatives, many of whom were sitting in the hearing room: Your government failed you … and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn'tmatter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask … for your understanding and for your forgiveness. End of statement. Applause. KO. Among the many feckless or snarky statements that Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and White House spokesman Scott McClellan have issued about Clarke the past few days, the observation they've recited with particular gusto is that this disgruntled ex-official was in charge of counterterrorism policy during the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, and the bombing of our East African embassies. Their implication was: How can this guy, who allowed so much bloodshed on his watch, be blaming us? And so now here's Clarke, in an official, nationally broadcast forum, announcing: I failed, I'm sorry, please forgive me. Which, as one member of the panel noted, is more than any official in the Bush administration has said to any victims of the far more devastating 9/11 attacks. I am not suggesting that Clarke's apology was cynical or purely tactical. I'm sure it was sincere. This is a guy who was obsessive about terrorism when he was the national coordinator for counterterrorism during the Bush 41, Clinton, and—briefly—Bush 43 administrations. His obsessiveness—and his frustration over the fact that his bosses didn't share his sense of urgency—made him genuinely passionate about the issue and genuinely distraught when inadequate policies led to tragedy. But in his 30 years of service in the upper rungs of the national-security apparatus, Clarke was such a formidable player of bureaucratic politics precisely because he combined eloquent advocacy and shrewd tactics. So, there's little doubt that Clarke truly meant his plea for forgiveness—but also that he knew he was twisting his dagger into Bush a little deeper. Three of the panel's Republicans tried to throw some punches Clarke's way, but they didn't land. James Thompson entered the ring with a swagger, holding up a copy of Clarke's new book in one hand and a thick document in the other. "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002," he bellowed. "Which is true?" He went on to observe that none of his book's attacks on Bush can be found anywhere in that briefing. Clarke calmly noted that, in August 2002, he was special assistant to President Bush. White House officials asked him to give a "background briefing" to the press, to minimize the political damage of a Time cover story on Bush's failure to take certain measures before 9/11. "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to play down the negative aspects," Clarke said, adding, "When one is a special assistant to the president, one is asked to do that sort of thing. I've done it for several presidents." Nervous laughter came from the crowd—or was it from the panel? The implication was clear: This is what I used to do and—though he didn't mention them explicitly—this is what Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley are doing now when they're defending the president. John Lehman, Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan and a former colleague of Clarke's, came out not just swaggering but swinging. The 16 hours of classified testimony that Clarke gave to the commission—and the six hours he testified before the joint congressional inquiry on 9/11—were nothing like what's in the book. There is, Lehman said, "a tremendous difference, and not just in nuance," adding, "You've got a real credibility problem!" You look like "an active partisan selling a book." Clarke began with a playful shuffle. "Thank you, John," he said, to laughter. First, he denied that he's campaigning for John Kerry and swore, under oath, that he would not take a job in a Kerry administration if there is one. Then he admitted there was a difference between his earlier testimony and his book. "There's a very good reason for that," he went on. "In the 15 hours of testimony, nobody asked me what I thought of the president's invasion of Iraq." The heart of his book's attacks surrounds the war. "By invading Iraq," he said, taking full advantage of Lehman's opening, "the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terror." End of response. Lehman said nothing. In the second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the August 2002 press briefing. "You intended to mislead the press?" he asked, perhaps hoping to pound a wedge between the media and their new superstar. "There's a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about," Clarke replied. Someone in his position had three choices. He could have resigned, but he had important work yet to do. He could have lied, but nobody told him to do that, and he wouldn't have in any case. "The third choice," he said, "is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts. That's what I did." Well, Thompson asked in a bruised tone, is there one set of moral rules for special assistants to the White House and another set for everybody else? "It's not a question of morality at all," Clarke replied. "It's a question of politics." The crowd applauded fiercely. To invoke another sports metaphor: Game, set, and match.
The worst part of this? Everybody -- including Clinton and especially Bush -- is pointing the finger at somebody else. Except for Clarke, nobody is sacking up, and saying, "You know what, I screwed up. I take responsibility." Instead, they're all being whiny little babies -- "He did it! He did it! He did it!" When will we get a President who takes responsibility for the blood on his hands?
Clarke knocked them dead today. When he told why his testimony wasn't for his own political gain and swore under oath that he would take no position with Kerry should Kerry be the president, it stopped the opposition dead in their tracks. I also like how Clarke pointed out to those that might think this is about book sells, that Clarke submitted his book months ago, and the timing of it's release is directly due to the Bush administration, and that it would have come out earlier had the administration cleared it sooner.
