Clarke, unlike DiIlulio and, to less degree, O'Neil, is not going to be bullied.
And I think we all ought to give a bow to guys like him, at the mid-level of all governments, who actually keep the show going.
I consider Clarke a genuine patriot, and the frantic efforts of the right to smear him are consistent with the panic they must feel at the truth being so publicly aired. I am reminded of Thomas Paine:
"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
Check...and underlined, set.
I am in awe of him and how he has handled this. Calm, rational, anticipating the subject matter of anti- comments and being at the ready with a necessary reply, etc. He is one intelligent, brave, cool dude. How I would like to meet him and shake his hand, as I did once in the Hartford airport with Eugene McCarthy (or am I misremembering his last name in a senior moment?).
By the way, this incident occurred afterwards. I brazenly walked up to him and stuck out my hand and said "Thank you". He said "You're welcome." Nothing else needed to be said.
sumac
Yes, you remember correctly, it was Eugene McCarthy you shook hands with and thanked. It was Joe McCarthy whom Ann Coulter shook hands with and thanked.
BBB
And it was Charley McCarthy who sat on Edgar Bergen's knee and didn't shake hands or thank anyone.
BBB
And its George Bush who sits on Cheney's knee, with ol' dick's hand up his ass!
And it was Candace Bergen who our friend Harvey said stopped and petted his great dog, Hogo, an akita shepherd. This was a major event in his life, no, not the dog's, Harvey's.
Poll results: he's slipping fast.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
I just don't understand why he hasn't dropped faster. Are voters really brain washed by the neocons?
Missy D, you know well enough how hard it is for people to admit that they have been wrong--look at yourself for that, i can always find that lesson within. How much the more appalling the admission would be to someone if they consider that having been wrong may have contributed to allowing this band of idiots and thugs to slaughter so many innocent people.
I think the Lou Dobbs segment on CNN tonight reported that the shrub had actually risen 16 points in the last three months. His approval rating is also holding steady - particularly in the domestic area. I'm worried that the effect isn't happening.
Perhaps it is just too soon.
Who knows, people work out their opinions from rather early on and cling to them. Not to say all of are exempt from that; some keep sifting data and adjusting, if the world view isn't formed yet, and the odd few do adjust world view, from time to time.
Once in a while batches of people change, when some episode keeps getting larger in the lifetime scope.
And some time later, some of those people change back.
It would all be so interesting, if I didn't care so much.
The gauntlet has been picked up
Quote:Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton also said that if the White House agreed, they were ready to declassify and make public the notes taken by commissioners when they interviewed Ms. Rice on Feb. 7, along with the transcripts of nearly 15 hours of private questioning of Mr. Clarke that was conducted by the commission before last week's hearing. "My tendency is to say that everything
This is from the lead article in today's NYT and is must reading as it clarifies (at least according to its author and the NYT) some points over which there has been some confusion.
News alert just came in that Bush will 'allow' Rice to testify in public under oath. I'm suprised.
perchance Mr Clarke has inflicted a bleeding wound by testifing in public and under oath that does not appear to be self-healing, leading to application of bandage-triage to minize bleeding. The prior, to date, stand in principle of administation shield has been replaced by "real-politik"
Condi Rice to testify under oath in public
Please note my BOLD paragraph at the end - WOW!---BBB
[Tue Mar 30 2004 10:43:17 ET]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 2004
Thomas H. Kean, Chairman
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chairman
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
2100 K St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton:
As we discussed last night, the President is prepared, subject to the conditions set forth below, to agree to the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States for public testimony, under oath, by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
The President has consistently stated a policy of strong support for the Commission and instructed the Executive Branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to the Commission. To my knowledge, the Executive Branch has provided access to documents or information in response to each of the requests issued by the Commission to date, including many highly classified and extremely sensitive documents that have seldom, if ever, been made available outside the Executive Branch.
As an additional accommodation, the Executive Office of the President has available more than 20 EOP officials, including the National Security Advisor, for private meetings with the Commission. As you know, based on principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers, Presidents of both parties have long taken the position that White House advisors and staff are not subject to the jurisdiction of legislative bodies and do not provide testimony - even on a voluntary basis - on policy matters discussed within the White House or advice given to the President. Indeed, I am not aware of any instance of a. sitting National Security Advisor testifying in public to a legislative body (such as the Commission) concerning policy matters.
We continue lo believe, as I advised you by letter dated March 25, 2004, that the principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers strongly against such public testimony, and that Dr. Rice's testimony before the Commission occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001 present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances, and with conditions and assurances designed to limit harm to the ability of future Presidents to receive candid advice.
Nevertheless, the President recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the Commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, we have now received assurances from the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate that, in their view, Dr. Rice's public testimony in connection with the extraordinary events of September 11, 2001 does not set, and should not be cited as, a precedent for future requests for a National Security Advisor or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body. In light of the unique nature of the Commission and these additional assurances, the President has determined that, although he retains the legal authority to decline to make Dr. Rice available to testily in public, he will agree, as a matter of comity and subject to the conditions set forth below, to the Commission's for Dr. Rice to testify publicly regarding matters within the Commission's statutory mandate.
The necessary conditions are as follows. First, the Commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before die Commission does not set any precedent for future Commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a National Security Advisor or any other White House official.
Second, the Commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice. The National Security Advisor is uniquely situated to provide the Commission with information necessary to fulfill its statutory mandate. Indeed, it is for reason that Dr. Rice privately met with the Commission for more than four hours on February 7, fully answered every question posed to her, and offered additional private meetings as necessary. Despite the fact that the Commission will therefore have access to all information of which Dr. Rice is aware, the Commission has nevertheless urged public confidence in the work of the Commission would be enhanced by Dr. Rice appearing publicly before the Commission. Other White House officials with information relevant to the Commission's inquiry do not come within the scope of the Commission's rationale for seeking public testimony from Dr. Rice. These officials will continue to provide the Commission with information through private meetings, briefings, and documents, consistent with our previous practice. I greatly appreciate the strong support you expressed to me last for an agreement to the conditions on which we are proposing this extraordinary accommodation and your commitment to strongly advocate for the full support of the Commission. If the Commission accepts the terms of this agreement, I hope that we can schedule a time as soon as possible for such a public appearance by Dr. Rice. I want to reiterate once again, however, that Dr. would be made available to the Commission with due- regard for the Constitutional separation of powers and reserving all legal authorities, privileges, and objections that may apply, including with respect to other governmental entities or private parties.
I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - Commission access to the President and Vice President. I am authorized to advise you that the President and Vice President have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 Commissioners, with one Commission staff member present to take notes of the session.
1 look forward to continuing to work with the Commission to help it obtain the information it needs to fulfill its statutory mandate.
Sincerely,
Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President
Dylexia wrote:
Quote:perchance Mr Clarke has inflicted a bleeding wound by testifing in public and under oath that does not appear to be self-healing,
Here's an article posted by BillW on another thread:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bushs-Hardball.html
Quote: Newsview: Cross Bush, Face Payback
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 27, 2004
Filed at 2:02 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is playing supercharged hardball in going after his own former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke. It's a risky strategy that shows the single-mindedness of Bush and his re-election team in trying to deflect politically damaging criticism.
Loyalty is a hallmark of Bush's administration, with the president and his top lieutenants quick to turn on those who stray from the fold.
Advertisement
A week after a broadside that questioned Democratic rival John Kerry's commitment to U.S. troops and fitness to be president -- standard operating procedure for the general election campaign -- Bush's re-election machine unleashed a shock and awe campaign designed to discredit Clarke.
Bush's leadership after the Sept. 11 attacks is the guiding theme of his re-election campaign, intended to suggest the nation is safer with him as president. Clarke's claim that Bush ignored the threat from Osama bin Laden and waged a pointless war against Iraq's Saddam Hussein directly challenges that argument.
In his book ``Against All Enemies,'' Clarke predicted retribution from a White House ``adept at revenge.''
But Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, are essentially following the same game plan that the late Lee Atwater -- an early political mentor of Rove's -- used to get the first President Bush elected in 1988: define and undercut an opponent early with a fusillade of negative attacks.
``This team is tough. You cross them and they go after you and raise questions about you and your credibility rather than what you have to say,'' said Thomas Mann, a scholar with the Brookings Institution.
Others who have fallen out of favor over Iraq include former economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki. All voiced concerns about either the expense or number of troops needed to occupy Iraq. All were treated dismissively by the White House. All are gone, but their estimates proved accurate.
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV drew the administration's wrath by suggesting Bush exaggerated Saddam's nuclear capabilities. A federal grand jury is investigating whether a White House official illegally disclosed that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer to get back at him.
On the domestic front, Paul O'Neill was fired as Treasury secretary in December 2002 after publicly questioning the need for additional Bush tax cuts -- another core campaign issue for Bush.
Administration officials now are waging a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster, a Medicare accountant who publicly said he was forbidden by his superiors from sharing with Congress a higher -- and more accurate -- cost estimate for the administration's Medicare program.
John DiIulio quit as director of Bush's office of faith-based initiatives in 2002, telling Esquire magazine that ``Mayberry Machiavellis'' led by Rove were basing policy only on re-election concerns. He later apologized for making what he said were rude remarks.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., stood on the Senate floor last week to urge Bush to stop the ``character attacks'' on Clarke, saying they recalled scorched-earth tactics that Bush and his allies used to defeat Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the GOP presidential primary in 2000, and Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in the 2002 midterm elections.
The risk for Bush in aggressively challenging a former member of his own administration is that it could backfire. Clarke's book instantly became a best seller, and the White House counterattack is helping to give the allegations even wider circulation.
But administration defenders said it was important to rebut the charges quickly to ensure that they wouldn't linger unanswered.
``I think the American people do not believe that the president of the United States is pursuing a folly in the war on terror,'' and it is important to drive that home, said Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Not every White House attempt at damage-control works. Last summer, White House officials tried to pin the blame on CIA Director George Tenet for not waving Bush off his State of the Union claim that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa for nuclear weapons.
Political analysts rushed to proclaim Tenet a goner, but those obituaries proved premature. CIA memos suddenly surfaced showing that Rice and her top advisers had, in fact, been given just such a warning by the CIA -- months before Bush's speech.
Tenet, a politically wily Clinton administration holdover, remains on the job.
Perhaps the usual medicine isn't working as well this time.
This morning I saw on CNN an interview with one of the commission members. She said the White House had agreed to release documents without going through the proper channels. They've by-passed Congress. Does anyone know anything more about this?
Declassifying the transcripts, e-mail, memos and other communications -- and Richard Clarke deserves praise for joining Senate Majority Leader Frist in this call to clear his name -- is actually
not compatible with national security.
But taking the transcripts, cutting the individual words into scraps and pasting them back together into incriminating sentences might be okay...
Quote:U.S. officials told NBC News that the full record of Clarke's testimony two years ago would not be declassified. They said that at the request of the White House, however, the CIA was going through the transcript to see what could be declassified, with an eye toward pointing out contradictions.
You know something's really wrong -- when an administration is truly out of control -- when they discuss their dirty tricks on background.
Be clear about what this is: using the CIA and the security classification process for an explicit, exclusively partisan purpose, at the direct behest of the White House. Call me old fashioned, but back in the good old days this used to be done with a bit more subterfuge, no?
It's one thing to declassify the whole thing. Perhaps there's even rationale in a post-9/11 world for that, though why only Clarke's words and no one else's should be released seems odd.
But the whole thing
won't be released, which would be the only way to really evaluate what he said. Only portions selected to highlight apparent contradictions.
We're on dangerous enough ground when the White House starts using the nation's intelligence agencies for explicitly political purposes.
But you know we're
really in trouble when they don't even try to hide it.
