Sean Conners aka SConn1 Sean Conners aka SConn1

Clarke Backs Up Book in 9/11 Commission Testimony

▼

Clarke Backs Up Book in 9/11 Commission Testimony

Condolezza Rice still a No-Show...

from 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
politics
16,274 views 48 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think Clarke is just trying to sell his book.

Common sense tells us that 9/11 was pretty much going to happen no matter what. If people thought going after Iraq was controversal, invading Afghanistan PRE-9/11 would have been a nightmare.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
fun fact: nytimes article

Dr. Frist and other Republican Congressional leaders said their decision to seek declassification had not been coordinated with the White House. And it could put the White House in a potentially awkward spot since it is the administration that decides on declassification.


take those letters and change the address to 1600 pennsylvania avenue...
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jeblackstar -

The letter was written by Congressman Christopher Shay, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations addressed to the Chairman and Deputy National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, dated March 24, 2004.

If you wish to have a copy perhaps you can call the SubCommittee.

aconservative
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
ok,,,,where do i start?

1st off...i find it amusing that someone would call me an ideologue when they are coming in here with statements like " What Clarke said in his book and testimony directly contradicts..." when NO such evidence has been brought to light...nothing at all is backed up except for one reference to an already discredited fox news piece. and fox is about as good of a source to me as the nation is to you. ..just for the record...

the closest anyone has come to saying anything remotely resembling what you are charging ws Bill Frist yesterday on the senate floor. and he said something to the effect that if Clarke was giving contradictory testimony, of which, he did not know of, and if he was just being a good soldier, then shame on him, etc, etc,,," (i'm paraphrasing) but again, none of this testimony has been shown to be contradictory. In fact, a staffer for the commission was asked to compare both testimonies this week and found nothing to be contradictory.

more interesting was the independent testimony given to congress over medicare. this was a guy named foster (i forget his 1st name) and he testified that he was pressured to hide the real numbers as early as back in June of 2003. This was the guy in charge of that task of figuring out the cost by the way. His testimony was very sim. to Clarke's when asked about why he would give in to that pressure, as Clarke had on the backround briefing that Fox chose to misuse. he stated that he had 3 choices,,,and went on to reflect what Clarke had said, O'Neill had said and others who have been freed of what is becoming an increasing amount of suspicion towards this administration using very strong-armed tactics.

And if you want further proof that Clarke isn't alone in his assertions about the Bush administration's lack of urgency when they came in...there's this...

internal Department of Justice (DoJ) documents obtained by the Center for American Progress demonstrate. The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce DoJ's anti-terrorist budget but also shift DoJ's mission in spirit to emphasize its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force. These changes in mission were just as critical as the budget changes, with Ashcroft, in effect, guiding the day to day decisions made by field officers and agents. And all of this while the Administration was receiving repeated warnings about potential terrorist attacks.

And that makes about or around 20 or so things that i have stated with back-up and source information, some even footnoted. meanwhile, all the right has to offer is 1 tainted document and a whole lot of smokescreen. that combined with a personal attack on me. how typical...

and, all the while, not 1 peep about why Dr Rice won't testify in public after the claims of seperations of powers had been erased and she is shooting her mouth off on every show she can, including a full interview on 60 minutes this sunday.

you boys can quibble over this all ya want,,,think i'll move on...

and thanks for the back up jeb and others,,,you had no reason to step up, and ya did anyway, a true show of courage in one's beliefs....even tho i am an idndependent, the last 4 years have done nothing but confirm my orig. suspicions about this gang from texas, et al.,,,and over the past 4 years, i have seen what a powerful machine it is...indeed, it is an impressive political monster. ..guys like paul oneill, hans blix, richard clarke, joe wilson, david kay and others all seem to have 1 thing in common...when they speak out about what is wrong with the administrations methods or plans or assertions that they know to be false, they instantly become a bad guy all of a sudden. meanwhile, another constant sems to be backed up with the witnesses assertions about bullying tactics and threats of their job if they didn't comply with the party line. this is further evidenced to me when i see the rehearsed, almost robotic answers to questions that have been legally "fine toothed combed." more often than not. ...then it is no surprise how Dr Rice is refusing to go into a forum where she may not have any control or editorial oversight.

when i think about this situation,,,it puzzles me how some just don't see the inconsistancy of things right in front of them. Clarke's testimony suggested that the bush team wasn't quite as adamant and urgent minded about terrorism and al qaeda as they might want you to think. this to republicans seems to be a caharge on the level of blasphemy to hear them talk. But they have no problem calling every person who has disagreed withthe administration about ANYTHING a liar or some derrogatory or backhanded term...usually with nothing to back it up. They want this administration to have some air of infallibility like the catholic church has claimed thru the ages...and we see where that got us. meanwhile, they want us all to believe that anyone who speaks out against anything from the administration is a liar, a traitor or worse...is that really possible, that only bad, lying traitors would ever speak ill of an administration policy or tactic??? i have a really hard time believing that,,,especially when,,,


joe wilson was handpicked as a terorism expert to do what the vice president, the CIA and NSA asked him to do.

paul o neill was picked by bush to be in his cabinet

hans blix 's words were some of the ones used to justify going into iraq.

david kay was handpicked by the administration to go over and find the weapons...they were so confident he would dispell all those nasty rumours that last august they were leaking stories about it,,,that is where the now infamous "you don't roll out a new product in august when everyone's on vacation" stuff came out when the y were asked why wait...they acted as if they knew the report was going to show where the stockpile s were , and a month later, that was shown to be a lie. ...the company line then was "wee're gonna wait until he submits his final report"...when he did, and resigned his post, he was then an ideologue who just hated bush or something,,,every charachter assasination attempt was done by pundits of this administration and it's failed policies.

Richard Clarke was a 30 year veteran of the white house, a registered republican and had served under both parties loyally and faithfully...even after being shoved back by the neocons who knew better, Clarke stayed on loyally and faithfully and did everything he could to serve his president and his country. now his charachter is being assasinated.

and it goes on and on....

as Bill Shakespeare said "Me thinks the Lady doth protest too much"
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think you make the case much better than I do that...you are an ideologue.  The Clarke transcript is available on the net for reading.

Link

This was a briefing Clarke gave to reporters. It's not confidential. It's a matter of public record. Clarke either lied then or is lying now. Either way, he's not a reliable source. He clearly has an axe to grind.

The reason why Clarke's testimony won't be compelling to American voters (but certainly to partisans like you) is because of common sense. There is no realistic way 9/11 could have been prevented.  So even if Clarke was credible, which he isn't at this point, so what? What would Clarke (Clarke v2.0 that is) propose? The preemptive invasion of Afghanistan in early 2001? 9/11 happened 9 months after Bush got into office.

Clinton had this on his plate for most of 8 years and what did we get? Some missiles shot at empty tents? And let's be fair to Clinton -- what could he realistically have done? Invaded Afghanistan? But at the same time, maybe he was "too pre-occupied" with Kosovo to put his energies on Al Qaeda. There is no charge that Clarke makes against Bush that isn't even more true of Clinton. And Clarke 1.0 told the press in 2002 how great of a job Bush was doing on terrorism and how proactive they had been.

as Bill Shakespeare said "Me thinks the Lady doth protest too much"

Well said, it describes your position quite well.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Clinton didn't do a wonderful job against terrorism. Bush didn't do a wonderful job against terrorism before 9/11. It does seem to me that Clarke seems to have a bit of an agenda, I may be wrong. Doing a quick search on Drudge report....I found these articles......

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

Only one of these is from Fox News, the supposed evil news channel. In support of Brad, he ,especially in this thread, while supporting a side has seemed very open where jeb and sconn haven't. They've been visciously attacking on a subject that I don't think any of us has enough information on at the moment. I guess I hate ideologues like them.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
whatever,,,people will read this and make up their own minds,,,which is fine by me,,,i don't need to grandstand for the people...still not 1 word in response to Rice refusal to testify publicly and more smokescreens...we all know ya don't like me brad,,,don't let your hate drive you insane here, lol...move on,,,you'll have plenty to grandstand about in future posts, i promise you,,,but this is really getting boring....and i'm not really interested in taking the bait again and having my 1 and only question ignored for the umpteenth time, along with virtually every point.... ....like i said,,,move on...the whole thing will be playing out in front of us in the very near future, and we will see...going after me isn't going to make Clarke, O'Neill, Kay, Blix or Wilson et al... any less credible...but if necessary, i am happy to stand here as a lightning rod, lol...but unless there is anything new, and ya'll wanna maybe consider answering why you think Dr Rice isn't testifying in public is such a horrible thing...don't expect me to answer,,,
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sconn, the reason you don't debate well is that you take disagreements with your opinions as personal afronts.

My response had nothing to do with you. You believe Clarke's testimony harms Bush. I don't think it will in the long term because Clarke's credibility is severely damaged by the fact that he's on the record for contradicting himself. It's as simple as that.

If someone says one thing on day X and then on day Y says the exact opposite, why should anyone believe what he says? I provided a link to the transcript in which he says just the opposite. I also put forth my reasons as to why I don't think Americans are going to blame Bush for 9/11 or feel he wasn't tough enough on terrorism. I'm comfortable with my position and the evidence I put forth to support my position.

we all know ya don't like me brad,,,don't let your hate drive you insane here, lol...move on,,,you'll have plenty to grandstand about in future posts, i promise you,,,but this is really getting boring....and i'm not really interested in taking the bait again and having my 1 and only question ignored for the umpteenth time, along with virtually every point.... ....like i said,,,move on...the whole thing will be playing out in front of us in the very near future, and we will see...going after me isn't going to make Clarke, O'Neill, Kay, Blix or Wilson et al... any less credible.

As for Rice, perhaps the information she wanted to go over included sensitive material. Neither of us know. I don't think it's that relevant either either way. What we DO know, for a fact, however, is that Clarke has contradicted by 180 degrees his earlier statements.  Simply saying "Whatever" to that is essentially an admission of that. The title of your article and main thrust of it is about Clarke and his testimony. Testimony that is not very convincing in light of the facts that are coming out about his previous interviews on the matter.

You seem to believe patronizing and insulting those who disagree with you as a substitute for debating. This may come as a shock but my opinion that Clarke's credibility is damaged has nothing to do with you.

But I think at this point you have demonstrated that you are currently incapable of carrying on a civilized discussion. I thought after your banning you might have cooled down. But apparently not. So I'll just leave you to write your left-wing diatribes and occasionally point to them when showing how it is usally left-wingers who resort to personal attacks, inflexibility, and patronizing.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I've said again and again. The two things I like about Clarke, and there are only two things, and no I haven't read his book, is that 1) he apologized for failing the american people, and 2) he presented his evidence and stood up quite well against attacks by republican members of the commission. He certainly appeared much more coherent than some of the people who have been questioned before the commision.

Cheers
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jeb, even though you in no way replied to my post, I want to apologize for calling you an ideologue. Even though I rarely agree with you, you have always presented a good argument.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
My response to your post, is that my comments have not been personal attacks against anyone. Brad and I rarely agree, but we have a mutual respect. Aconservative made a nonlogical statement, I pointed that out, he eventually clarified. I've not, in this post, attacked Fox news, nor ever attacked the transcript that Brad, and you yourself have posted. I do not hold with most of Sconn1's points, only the ones about aconservative not really knowing about classified material, and that Richard Clarke seemed more upstanding than anyone else who testified.

I resent being painted with the same brush as sconn and refer you to my article on attack posts to see how I feel about people like him.

Cheers
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, and by the way Brad, and I admit this was without an indepth reading of all of Clarke's testimony, but I couldn't notice any substantive differences between the two transcripts.

I'm not saying you're lying, I'm just hoping you could illuminate which portions you think are contradictory. I'd appreciate it from an educational standpoint.

Cheers
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Essentially Clarke stated in his book and in recent testimony that Bush did nothing to go after Terrorists whiel Clinton had been.  That is completely at odds with what he had said prevoiusly.  In April of 2001, Bush's team changed the policy from roll-back of Al Qaeda to elimination. 

Clarke has implied that Clinton was somehow on the ball but previously he said that Clinton basically didn't have a plan.

Here's a link to a Washington Times article that goes through some of those contradictions:

Link

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
I admit I haven't been following this as closely as I should have. But "having a plan" isn't the same as "making it a priority." One comparison I just read was of Clinton's response to an Al Qaeda threat, compared to Bush's response:

Link

On Clinton:

From mid-1999 on, the raw intelligence about an impending assault of major proportions was on the scale of the information that bombarded listening posts starting in the spring of 2001. It was massive.

The response four years ago is a minor classic in the annals of how things happen in immense organizations. It's not all that complicated. When the intelligence information "spiked," a small group of the most important people running agencies that are supposed to protect the country began getting together regularly. The result from the very top was that after every one of these gatherings, officials returned to their shops determined to force every scrap of useful information out of their organization so that they would have something concrete to report on at the next meeting.

The flip side is that the people who actually do the work have a little extra spring in their step when they know that their activities are of intense interest to the ultimate boss.

One place where the results were enormous happened to be the much-maligned Justice Department and the FBI. With Attorney General Janet Reno apparently matching Clarke's zeal back at her office, raw information flowed as speedily up the ladder as orders for more flowed down, and one result was that Al Qaeda cells planning attacks were thwarted on both coasts.

It's true that the entire operation caught a very lucky break when a customs officer found a car full of high-explosives at the Canadian border, along with a terrorist on his way to attempt a massive bombing at Los Angeles International Airport. That break occurred in the context of a full alert coordinated by Clarke.


On Bush:

In the spring and summer of 2001, the spike in intelligence information was even greater then the one in 2001. It is a fact that the CIA's information focused on American interests in Saudi Arabia and Israel, in particular, but we now know that the possibility of an attack on the United States was continually mentioned, especially by Clarke.

This time, however, nothing like the alert directed from the top resulted, even though the American experience had been further embittered by the attack on the USS Cole in the fall of 2000. There were warnings and alerts to airlines and embassies and military installations, to be sure, but in context they had the impact of boilerplate bureaucracy; agency heads were not receiving the continuous inspiration of daily White House direction to shake every tree in the forest.

In retrospect, Clarke believes this mattered. Only politics can explain the Bush administration's refusal to agree. This is not, moreover, an idle exercise involving only the past; there remain serious arguments about whether cost and business pressure is preventing the country from doing all it should to monitor air cargo, shipping, and chemical and nuclear plants, even in a post-9/11 atmosphere.



If this sort of thing holds up, it would seem to reconcile the apparent contradictions in Clarke's testimony. There was no major change in the overall strategy (Fox news transcript, Washington Times article, etc), but crisis management was very different, thus Clarke's criticisms. Also, if it's true, it's rather damning.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
thanks for your comments vince,,,i am preparing a follow up article, so i'm not really addressing stuff here anymore...but i do appreciate your remarks:)
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently Clarke refused to testify under oath a few years ago just like Condoleezza Rice is doing now. I don't know how much this hurts Clarkes side since it was about Y2k, but its still an interesting note. I personally believe Condoleezza Rice should testify, but here's the link:
http://www.drudgereport.com/rc1.htm
I again apologize for lack of a clickable link, but for some reason I can't get the link to insert using Firefox.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
aaron,,,1st off....anyone who testifies, whether in public or private, by law is testifying "under oath" whenever doing it before Congress. It is a crime to lie to Congress, therefore, everyone who is called to speak to them is inherently under oath. he whole "under oath" thing is a red herring by someone (and it's tough to tell who, and it really doesn't matter) or is just an idea put out by people who don't really know what they are talking about (and i am in no way suggesting you are one of those people).

lastly aaron, please read my follow up to this article, which may answer some, if not all of your questions Link
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, they are only testifying under oath, if they are actually under oath. I realize that most people who testify in court or before congress are sworn in, but there are cases where you don't have to.

Cheers
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
actually, i contend that lying to congress is a crime and when one speaks to congress they are under a "de facto" oath. this point was backed up the other day on wolf blitzer by both sides of the aisle....i tried to reply then but that was the day no one could post.... the actual difference lies in that when someone is sworn in, there is a transcript. when they are not, only notes are taken..sometimes.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, if you lie to congress, when not under oath, you are not committing a crime. If you can show me some law that disproves this I will apologize for my incorrectness, but if a member of congress, or someone recognized to speak on the floor, who is not sworn in, and says "The Sky is Red", he/she will probably be laughed at, but he/she is not breaking the law.

Cheers