GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony

In rush to defend White House, Rice trips over own words
I said above the Bush administration not to start down this path---they are already making a big mistake.---BBB

In rush to defend White House, Rice trips over own words
Walter Pincus, Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Friday, March 26, 2004

Washington -- This week's testimony and media blitz by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has returned unwanted attention to his former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The refusal by President Bush's top security aide to testify publicly before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks elicited rebukes by commission members as they held open hearings this week. Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor Bush named to be chairman of the commission, said: "I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public."

At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before Sept. 11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban. The CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats. And Rice's assertion this week that Bush had told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she had retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.

National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack defended many of Rice's assertions, saying that she had been more consistent than Clarke.

Rice so far has refused to provide testimony under oath to the commission that could possibly resolve the contradictions. Wednesday night, she told reporters, "I would like nothing better in a sense than to be able to go up and do this, but I have a responsibility to maintain what is a long-standing constitutional separation between the executive and the legislative branch."

The White House, reacting to the public relations difficulties caused by the refusal to allow Rice's testimony, asked the commission Thursday to give Rice another opportunity to speak privately with panel members to address "mischaracterizations of Dr. Rice's statements and positions."

Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center ... that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she had misspoken; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies, and Clarke, had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.

In an op-ed essay Monday in the Washington Post, Rice wrote that "through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate" al Qaeda that included "sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime" including the use of ground forces.

But Armitage, testifying this week as the White House representative, said the military part was not in the plan before Sept. 11. "I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11," he said. McCormack said Rice's statement was accurate because the team had discussed including orders for such military plans to be drawn up.

In the same article, Rice belittled Clarke's proposals by writing: "The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or 'roll back' the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to 'eliminate' the al Qaeda network." Rice asserted that while Clarke and others provided ideas, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." That same day, she said most of Clarke's ideas "had been already tried or rejected in the Clinton administration."

But in her interview with NBC two days later, Rice appeared to take a different view of Clarke's proposals. "He sent us a set of ideas that would perhaps help to roll back al Qaeda over a three- to five-year period; we acted on those ideas very quickly. And what's very interesting is that ... Dick Clarke now says that we ignored his ideas, or we didn't follow them up."

Asked about this apparent discrepancy, McCormack pointed a reporter to a Clarke background briefing in 2002 in which the then-White House aide was defending the president's efforts in fighting terrorism.

I hope they roast Clarke over a slow fire. That kind of betrayal is not often seen, and they need to make an example of him.

He's really an idiot for lying like that after appearing before Congress when his words were placed in the official record. He should have known that he would be caught right away. It's no wonder he was fired from the administration - apparently he's not too bright.

This is typical of the sort of partisan crap from either side that is counterproductive. "Who care aboutt he truth, loyalty is everything" is great for street gangs and mafia families, but has no place in democracy.


I've seen a lot of accusations and smears, but no proof of lies.
BTW, he resigned, he was not fired. You seem to be the one who isn't overly bright.

Bring it on!!!!
In their panic the Rethugs have now opened a Pandora's Box.
Yeah, declassify everything. It will make the secret meeting null and void and anyone in the future will know that what they testify to in secret will come out in public. Good move on the Rethugs part.

After Richard Clark's secret tetimony let's see Ms. Rice's testimony.

And yet again you fail to make a post with out adding the useless ad hominem...I am beginning to wonder if you even can.

From the able2know.com Terms of Use:


If you want to attack my views, that's fine. If you want to attack me, that's not.

Bumble Bee:

For the Bush White House, Clarke's book was a declaration of war. How dare he break loyalty and write about King George the Liar? LOL!!!

They will stop at nothing to vilify and smear everything about him, finding fault with 30 years of government service, working for four Presidents (3 of whom are GOPers), as well as having impeccable neocon credentials.

Watch for Bush's watercarriers to suggest Clarke is "insane" or "unbalanced" in some way. Everytime they feel the fire at their feet, they try and play the sanity card.

They tried this with John McCain during the 2000 GOP primaries, as well as his wife, they've tried with Anthony Zinni, and they've tried it Lawrence Lindsey, and most recently, Paul O'Neill.

The Bush administration is in deep bandini -- they know it and they're running scared.

Bush should be scared -- very scared.

Yeah.
Yeah, knock it off. Rethugs are sensitive hypocrites and they whine a lot. Maybe they should post in red font..

Of course when they attack someone personaly it is justified.

Okay, I admit I was wrong about the demotion. He says he asked to change his job from counterterrorism to cybersecurity.

HOWEVER...



Insight Magazine

Oh and by the way, I never attack another board member personally. It's one of the things people have noticed on other boards. That's why I dislike it so much when other people do it.

What's a "Rethug?"

Rethug
Rethug is my endearing nick name for Rethuglicans. :wink:

"Records Show Richard Clarke Gave Only to Democrats." tarantula

Then the larger question is even more serious for Saint Reagan, Poppy Bush and the "Kid."

Why would they hire a man who is in bed with the Democratic party? I mean, I know conservatives aren't the brightest bulbs in the box, but 3 separate GOP Presidents could make this mistake in judgement?

ROFLMAO!!!

Maybe you missed this thread?


I am asking that you stop that, please.


You should read the article again. The only dates given are for 2002 and 2004. George Bush was the only President during that time. As for why he was hired, you're asking the wrong person. I have no idea.

Betrayal is thus defined as speaking in opposition to an administration or its policies regardless of the integrity or legality of such policies. Do I have you right? Can you conceive of anyone from this administration speaking against it who would not be a traitor? Please explain your answer.

BBB
Quick, while the Bush administration is wildly declassifying stuff, the demand should be made to also declassify Vice President Cheney's energy council meetings, which he has refused to reveal.

BBB

BBB

If there is ANY indicator of bad democratic governance, it is the move away from transparency and towards withholding data or obfuscation. That's a fundamental principle.

I fear that this morass will continue for quite a while. Despite some of Rice's ill thought out, perhaps off the cuff remarks, Clarke said to someone (because I saw and heard it), that the book was sent to the White House last fall, that being legally necessary, prior to publication. He said that he would have preferred that the book come out last fall as planned, but that the White House took so long to review it to make sure that no classified (don't really remember if that was the legal necessity) information were in the book, that it didn't come out until now. If true, then the White House has had a long time to prepare for their reaction to its eventual publication. Should be easy enough to check through the publisher.

Kerry challenges Bush to prosecute Clarke if he lied
Kerry challenges Bush to prosecute Clarke if former anti-terrorism advisor lied - CBS
Fri Mar 26, 6:51 PM ET

NEW YORK (AFP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) challenged President George W. Bush (news - web sites) to prosecute former national security aide Richard Clarke if they can show that he lied about terrorism policy.

"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath, Kerry told CBS's MarketWatch.

"They have a perfect right to do that," said Kerry.

Republicans in Congress want to declassify testimony Clarke gave before Congress in 2002 that they claim is at odds with accounts critical of the administration in the aide's recently published book.

Clarke, a counter-terrorism advisor to three presidents, published a book this week entitled "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," in which he claims the Bush administration failed to heed warnings of the September 11, 2001 attacks and then focused its attention on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) rather than al-Qaeda.

He repeated the allegations under oath in testimony before a congressional committee.

The charges prompted an aggressive response from the White House, amid apparent concerns that they could undermine the president's re-election bid in November.

Way to go for Kerry to call their bluff.

I am wondering what kind of people these are who are wanting to declassify things kept classified for security reasons.

Revel
Revel, don't you know that winning in politics is more important than national security classification? Clarke's statements probably shouldn't have been classified anyway. But the Bush Whitehouse is shrouded in secrecy.

BBB