The CBS 60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview

Out of the Closet: REPUBLICANISM SHOWN TO BE GENETIC IN ORIGIN

The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically
determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal
Nurture, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen
lifestyle. Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered
after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, Calif., have sent
shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural disregard for the poor and their frequently unconstitutional tendencies
resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics. A remarkably high percentage
of Republicans do have authoritarian, domineering fathers and emotionally
distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Biologists
have long suspected that conservatism is inherited. "After all," said one
author of the Nurture article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a
brother or sister who is a Republican." The finding has been greeted with
relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame
themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family,
and unindicted co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on
hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with
her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose
that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said,
"You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on
TV: the flaming xenophobia, the flamboyant demagogy, the disdain for anyone not
rich, you know." Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early
age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became
convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.



The Nurture article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of
Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes
but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same
parents and family dynamics.

A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican
at least once--or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that
three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although
most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.

Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating
conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their
lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they
shouldn't be denied civil rights that other minorities enjoy. If
conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical
stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't
help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the
military or even high elected office--provided they don't flaunt their
political beliefs. For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a
different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism
altogether.

But should they be allowed to marry?

" John Dean, ex White House counsel for Nixon, speaks about the Bush administration... http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/31/dean/index.html

(day pass is a five second view)"

"Likewise, this administration surely seems to be vindictive regarding voices within or without who speak against it. Again, if so, then that is not a good thing.

Dean makes the claim that the intention of this administration is most fundamentally to gain re-election. That's a claim which was also made by DiIulio, himself a Republican and a fan of the President. It's a claim made by many others as well. I think it is an accurate claim. And yes, I think this administration is not typical on this matter."

I think, my friend, that this administration is quite typical of American administrations spanning more than two centuries now. It is only those who despise it that declare it atypical and those who despise it are usually not willing to objectively compare it to any others. Just one example since I'm pressed for time now:

Look how many in this forum alone railed against the Bush
administration for not allowing Condoleeza Rice to testify
publicly under oath before the 9/11 commission...
They now say Bush and Cheney are being somehow devious
or secretive by talking to the commission behind closed doors.
They ignore the fact that no sitting president has ever been
required to accept a subpoena or otherwise to give public
testimony to a committee or commission in the history of
the country and none have.

I don't doubt the Bush administration is maybe more secretive than 'normal'; maybe more secretive than it has to be. But in a day and

Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism
Rice Speech Cited Missile Defense
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page A01


On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.

I've read what Judicial Watch has said and probably two dozen other groups/publications have said and almost all are parroting the Democrat National Committee talking points "most secretive administration...."; "stonewalling...." "appearance of something hide" etc. etc.

But in a day and age where there are those who will grasp at, distort, and twist any shred of information and play it as negatively as possible to the media,

and when we are involved in a war where American and allied lives are on the line, I'm not going to quibble about it at this point.

Bush Counsel Called 9/11 Panelist Before Clarke Testified

By Dana Milbank and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page A13


President Bush's top lawyer placed a telephone call to at least one of the Republican members of the Sept. 11 commission when the panel was gathered in Washington on March 24 to hear the testimony of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, according to people with direct knowledge of the call.



White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales called commissioner Fred F. Fielding, one of five GOP members of the body, and, according to one observer, also called Republican commission member James R. Thompson. Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, wrote to Gonzales yesterday asking him to confirm and describe the conversations.

Waxman said "it would be unusual if such ex parte contacts occurred" during the hearing. Waxman did not allege that there would be anything illegal in such phone calls. But he suggested that such contacts would be improper because "the conduct of the White House is one of the key issues being investigated by the commission."

White House spokesmen were unable to get a response from Gonzales.

"We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001"
A former FBI translator told the 9/11 commission that the bureau had detailed information well before Sept. 11, 2001, that terrorists were likely to attack the U.S. with airplanes.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Eric Boehlert, a senior writer at Salon.
March 26, 2004

A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called "very credible" by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.

Referring to the Homeland Security Department's color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, "We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available." Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. "Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie."

Edmonds' charge comes when the Bush White House is trying to fend off former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's testimony that it did not take serious measures to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism, and al-Qaida specifically, in the months leading up to 9/11.

Edmonds, who is Turkish-American, is a 10-year U.S. citizen who has passed a polygraph examination conducted by FBI investigators. She speaks fluent Farsi, Arabic and Turkish and worked part-time for the FBI, making $32 an hour for six months, beginning Sept. 20, 2001. She was assigned to the FBI's investigation into Sept. 11 attacks and other counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases, where she translated reams of documents seized by agents who, for the previous year, had been rounding up suspected terrorists.

She says those tapes, often connected to terrorism, money laundering or other criminal activity, provide evidence that should have made apparent that an al- Qaida plot was in the works. Edmonds cannot talk in detail about the tapes publicly because she's been under a Justice Department gag order since 2002.

"President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that's accurate," says Edmonds. "But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should've alerted the people to the threat we're facing."

Edmonds testified before 9/11 commission staffers in February for more than three hours, providing detailed information about FBI investigations, documents and dates. This week Edmonds attended the commission hearings and plans to return in April when FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify. "I'm hoping the commission asks him real questions -- like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who'd been used [by the Bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn't say no," she insists.

Edmonds first made headlines in 2002 when she blew the whistle on the FBI's translation department, which was suddenly thrown into the spotlight as investigators clamored for original terrorist-related information, often in Arabic. Edmonds made several reports of serious misconduct, security lapses and gross incompetence in the FBI translations unit, including supervisors who told translators to work slowly during the crucial post-9/11 period to ensure the agency would get more funds for its next annual budget. As a result of her reports, Edmonds says she was harassed at the FBI. She was fired in March 2002.

Litigation followed, and in October 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the Edmonds case, taking the extraordinary step of invoking the rarely used state secrets privilege in order "to protect the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." Ashcroft's move was made at the request of Mueller.

During a 2002 segment on "60 Minutes" exploring Edmonds' initial charges of FBI internal abuses, Sen. Grassley was asked if Edmonds is credible. "She's credible and the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story," he said.

The Inspector General's office then launched an investigation into Edmonds' charges and told her to expect a finding in the fall of 2002. The report has yet to be released. Edmonds suspects if it is ever publicly released Ashcroft will demand that it be immediately classified. "They're pushing everything under the blanket of secrecy," she says.

That's why she felt it was so important to appear before the 9/11 commission: "It's the only hope I have left to get this issue added to the public domain."

The Story That Puts Other 'News' In Perspective

By Tina Brown
Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page C01


The best thing about Richard Clarke's testimony was that we were finally shocked by something important instead of pretending to be shocked by something ridiculous. After the Dean scream and the Jackson nipple and the many TV hours invested in such incendiary issues as the rightness or wrongness of reconstructive breast surgery for teenagers with self-esteem issues, the Clarke Chronology was a sonic boom that will go on reverberating through the op-ed classes, whether or not the Clarke Apology to the 9/11 families moves the polls.



We were about to OD on hearings, at least the courtroom kind -- Martha, Kobe, Michael, the wacko trial of Tyco boss Dennis Kozlowski. Who, in the end, can relate to the date-rape complications of a zillionaire basketball giant, the financial finaglings of a domestic dominatrix-tycoon, or the alleged pedophilia of a loony recording legend who makes up his face like Joan Crawford and maintains a private zoo? For news junkies numbed by the freak shows of celebrity justice, the Clarke story has been bracing.

"Mostly, TV languishes in an area that doesn't much please me, but once in a while it rises to the occasion and moves beyond the 'Fear Factor' or 'American Idol' or 'Survivor' and becomes more or less what we thought it would be when we all got into this goddamn business," Don Hewitt, czar of "60 Minutes," said to me about Clarke's explosive debut on the show with Lesley Stahl. "Dick Clarke taking on George Bush was a great big moment."

The stakeout culture needed this moral lift. Clarke suddenly restored our definition of news. Instead of souped-up sound bites and personality smackdowns, we had someone as credible as the national coordinator for counterterrorism in the White House through four administrations emerging from 30 years in his bureaucratic cave to speak on a matter of life and death.

This was a reality show, but it was also reality. People may have had a hard time identifying with Paul O'Neill's abortive adventure at Treasury -- a high-priced CEO who made a bad career choice, he never lost the aroma of the boardroom -- but Clarke, for all his scary IQ, is somebody we recognize. Every office has someone like him, a super-competent guy whose big, square, argumentative head you learn to dread when it appears around the door announcing bad news. The Bushies made the mistake of thinking the world would see Clarke as they did -- arrogant, relentless, alarmist, fussy, disloyal to the team, all of which might be true, but none of which really mattered against the gravity of the issue. The most famous office bore of the 20th century was Winston Churchill.

Thirty years of turf wars and PowerPoint strategizing served Clarke well for his succession of gladiatorial encounters. After "60 Minutes" and six hours of hearings, he was still hanging tough for the jabs of Tim Russert on "Meet the Press."

They want to declassify my transcript? Sure. Declassify Condi's too, and my e-mails and my memos, while we're at it. Want to talk about my letter of resignation? Here's the letter the president wrote me. Yikes. Who knew this off-the-radar guy would turn out to be such a star? The Bushies clearly didn't. Or else they might have paused before demoting him and cutting him loose.

It's his Tom Clancy quality that gives Clarke dramatic resonance. In Clancy's novels the heroes are always midlist guys like him, career patriots who are frustrated by the politicians -- except that in Clancy's usual scheme the politicians are craven liberals and in this case they are craven conservatives. (In the movie version Clarke would be played by Gene Hackman or Robert Duvall.) The Bushies now recognize this, which accounts for the histrionic level of the counterattack. Sen. Bill Frist frothed about Clarke's "appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information," overlooking the inconvenient fact that the book went through the normal channels of White House approval, a process that ironically was so bureaucratically sluggish it delayed the publishing date to the charged moment of the 9/11 hearings.

When Russert ominously replayed Frist's charge on "Meet the Press" and asked if Clarke would donate his royalties to the children of the dead, Clarke imperturbably raised him again. "Tim, long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make a substantial contribution, not only to them but to the widows and orphans of our special forces who have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq." Then expertly he lifted the discussion out of the distasteful realm of big-bucks New York publishing back into the shadows of Clancyland: "I also have to consider the fact that friends of mine in the White House are telling me that the word is out . . . to destroy me professionally. One line that somebody overheard was, 'He's not going to make another dime in Washington in his life.' " To be continued . . .

The Condi Rice hearings will supplant Clarke in sex appeal. The new story line of "Bush's best girl in trouble" has too much of a sweeps week flavor not to win the next round. No one really wants to focus on the most uncomfortable part of what Clarke had to say at the hearings: that all the sacrifices of the war in Iraq have made the world less safe.

Also worthy of note:

Quote:

Bush Counsel Called 9/11 Panelist Before Clarke Testified

By Dana Milbank and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page A13


President Bush's top lawyer placed a telephone call to at least one of the Republican members of the Sept. 11 commission when the panel was gathered in Washington on March 24 to hear the testimony of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, according to people with direct knowledge of the call.



White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales called commissioner Fred F. Fielding, one of five GOP members of the body, and, according to one observer, also called Republican commission member James R. Thompson. Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, wrote to Gonzales yesterday asking him to confirm and describe the conversations.

Waxman said "it would be unusual if such ex parte contacts occurred" during the hearing. Waxman did not allege that there would be anything illegal in such phone calls. But he suggested that such contacts would be improper because "the conduct of the White House is one of the key issues being investigated by the commission."

White House spokesmen were unable to get a response from Gonzales.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40578-2004Mar31.html?referrer=email

Well, we might grant it integrity IF he accepts Clarke's suggestion to declassify ALL of it, and all memos, etc between his department and Rice. And we'll note that is Powell's wish too...

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.