Clarke Backs Up Book in 9/11 Commission Testimony
Condolezza Rice still a No-Show...
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Today, after much fanfare, Richard Clarke testified before the 9/11 Commission. Throughout this week, there has been much coverage concerning his testimony after an explosive 60 Minutes interview and the release of his book on the subjects surrounding the war on terror. Some questioned his integrity and tried to discredit his 30 years of service, thru 4 administrations, working on terrorism in an extremely non partisan fashion.
Any question of his overall integrity was immediately dismissed when Clarke became the 1st person who has testified who went to the lengths of giving a very heartfelt apology for failing the families and loved ones of those killed on that day. Clarke went on to give compelling testimony consistant with previous words and despite a very partisan (ex Reagan council) Commisioner Thompson trying to discredit him based on a press backround briefing that was twisted by Fox news as being something it wasn't. Hawkish ex-senator Bob Kerrey, who questioned some of his views, but not his honesty, was the recipient of applause when he pointed out the misuse of the document should be cause for Fox to consider changing it's slogan to "sometimes fair and balanced."
Later, the frustrated Thompson all but conceded his attack when Clarke answered his last attempt to badger the witness into admitting he was lying by reminding the commissioner that when he was a Bush team member, as well as a member of other administrative bodies, that it was "just politics." A sentiment that everyone understood. And one that sheds a lot of light onto the attempts to discredit and slander Mr Clarke from the White House and it's pundits in conservative media, like Fox.
Throughout his 2+ hours of testimony, which was in addition to the many hours of already given testimony to the commision, Richard Clarke showed himself to have an excellent memory and a somewhat fair mind in his recollections. This was a man who was obviously not under the bidding of anyone to speak his mind. Where Clarke may have been a little overly optimistic about his own reactions to some hypotheticals, overall, he seemed to have a total grasp on what was going on with terrorism going back to the 1980's. Throughout his testimony, he was able to accurately back up much of his stands with historical events, corroborating testimony or evidence or documents in the commision's possession.
Also mentioned more than once wa the absence of Condi Rice's testimony. One of the commissioners, who has a track record going back to the Watergate scandal, repeated his offering of a document totally disproving her theory that someone in her position is above giving open testimony in such a matter. The document cited several examples that contradicted her and the administration's claims of some inherent immunity as claimed.
And perhaps Dr. Rice should reconsider her position. The White House is already under fire for many issues concerning their version of the terror war, and Dr. Rice's name seems to be coming up in every other person's testimony. And considering her willingness to shoot her mouth off on virtually every news program that she apparantly can, her ducking behind an immunity which simply does not exist is almost at the point of ridiculous.
Most of the bi-partisan commisioners found Richard Clarke's testimony to have a lot of credibility. He was as straightforward and honest as anyone who has been before this commission. I'm not sure if his view of everything is 100% accurate but the man showed his sincerity, and showed that one thing that he is not, is a liar. Here is some of what Richard Clarke has said recently...
Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."8 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.9
In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10
On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"11
Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."12
The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."13
The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."14
I believe this is a man who had one of the most intimate looks into the inside of the war on terror since the 1980's and at the very least, he should be listened to.
footnotes....
1. "Dissent from within on Iraq war," Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/04 http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/8260216.htm?1c (Registration required) 2. "Bush Aides Blast Ex-Terror Chief," CBS News, 3/22/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/terror/main608107.shtml 3. "The book on Richard Clarke," Washington Post, 3/23/04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16192-2004Mar22.html (Registration required) 4. "Clarke's Take On Terror," CBS, 3/21/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml 5. See 3, above. 6. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 7. "Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens," New York Times, 3/23/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CLAR.html?hp (Registration required) 8. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 9. See 7, above. 10. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 11. "Sept. 11: Before And After," CBS News, 3/20/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/60minutes/main607622.shtml 12. "Excerpts from 'Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror' by Richard A. Clarke," posted on NYTimes.com, 3/23/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CWOR.html (Registration required) 13. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 14. "Memoir Criticizes Bush 9/11 Response," Washington Post, 3/22/04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13607-2004Mar21.html (Registration required) 15. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. thanks to moveon.org for some quotes / footnotes
Any question of his overall integrity was immediately dismissed when Clarke became the 1st person who has testified who went to the lengths of giving a very heartfelt apology for failing the families and loved ones of those killed on that day. Clarke went on to give compelling testimony consistant with previous words and despite a very partisan (ex Reagan council) Commisioner Thompson trying to discredit him based on a press backround briefing that was twisted by Fox news as being something it wasn't. Hawkish ex-senator Bob Kerrey, who questioned some of his views, but not his honesty, was the recipient of applause when he pointed out the misuse of the document should be cause for Fox to consider changing it's slogan to "sometimes fair and balanced."
Later, the frustrated Thompson all but conceded his attack when Clarke answered his last attempt to badger the witness into admitting he was lying by reminding the commissioner that when he was a Bush team member, as well as a member of other administrative bodies, that it was "just politics." A sentiment that everyone understood. And one that sheds a lot of light onto the attempts to discredit and slander Mr Clarke from the White House and it's pundits in conservative media, like Fox.
Throughout his 2+ hours of testimony, which was in addition to the many hours of already given testimony to the commision, Richard Clarke showed himself to have an excellent memory and a somewhat fair mind in his recollections. This was a man who was obviously not under the bidding of anyone to speak his mind. Where Clarke may have been a little overly optimistic about his own reactions to some hypotheticals, overall, he seemed to have a total grasp on what was going on with terrorism going back to the 1980's. Throughout his testimony, he was able to accurately back up much of his stands with historical events, corroborating testimony or evidence or documents in the commision's possession.
Also mentioned more than once wa the absence of Condi Rice's testimony. One of the commissioners, who has a track record going back to the Watergate scandal, repeated his offering of a document totally disproving her theory that someone in her position is above giving open testimony in such a matter. The document cited several examples that contradicted her and the administration's claims of some inherent immunity as claimed.
And perhaps Dr. Rice should reconsider her position. The White House is already under fire for many issues concerning their version of the terror war, and Dr. Rice's name seems to be coming up in every other person's testimony. And considering her willingness to shoot her mouth off on virtually every news program that she apparantly can, her ducking behind an immunity which simply does not exist is almost at the point of ridiculous.
Most of the bi-partisan commisioners found Richard Clarke's testimony to have a lot of credibility. He was as straightforward and honest as anyone who has been before this commission. I'm not sure if his view of everything is 100% accurate but the man showed his sincerity, and showed that one thing that he is not, is a liar. Here is some of what Richard Clarke has said recently...
Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."8 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.9
In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."10
On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"11
Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."12
The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."13
The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."14
I believe this is a man who had one of the most intimate looks into the inside of the war on terror since the 1980's and at the very least, he should be listened to.
footnotes....
1. "Dissent from within on Iraq war," Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/04 http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/8260216.htm?1c (Registration required) 2. "Bush Aides Blast Ex-Terror Chief," CBS News, 3/22/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/terror/main608107.shtml 3. "The book on Richard Clarke," Washington Post, 3/23/04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16192-2004Mar22.html (Registration required) 4. "Clarke's Take On Terror," CBS, 3/21/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml 5. See 3, above. 6. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 7. "Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens," New York Times, 3/23/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CLAR.html?hp (Registration required) 8. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 9. See 7, above. 10. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 11. "Sept. 11: Before And After," CBS News, 3/20/04 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/60minutes/main607622.shtml 12. "Excerpts from 'Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror' by Richard A. Clarke," posted on NYTimes.com, 3/23/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/23CWOR.html (Registration required) 13. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. 14. "Memoir Criticizes Bush 9/11 Response," Washington Post, 3/22/04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13607-2004Mar21.html (Registration required) 15. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above. thanks to moveon.org for some quotes / footnotes
you don't work for someone on the committees, or c) if you are one of those two groups you just violated the fact that it was classified, which is a crime.