This thread is for people who have actually seen Richard Clarke’s testimony in front of the 911 commission. I realize that some of you have jobs and may have missed it. There is a transcript here: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04085/290935.stm
I would really encourage you to actually watch the testimony at http://www.c-span.org/ if you have the time.
There is at least one thread here in GD and one in the BBQ Pit where there are all sorts of misinformation and assumptions being thrown about.
I would ask that in this thread people discuss the actual sworn testimony of Richard Clarke. IOW, please don’t pollute this thread with “I think”, “I feel” based on reading news synopses of Clarke’s testimony.
If you really have the time, read or listen to the entire day’s hearing (3-24).
Ask questions or rebut what Clarke had to say. Facts only please.
While we’re waiting for people to read or watch Clarke’s testimony (I’m not optimistic… I suspect everyone is too busy reading their favorite blogs), I have a couple of questions.
Did anyone besides me watch Clarke’s testimony live?
Does anyone really believe that Bush was anywhere near on top of terrorism pre-911 than Clinton? My opinion – Clinton’s administration stopped several millennium attacks due to a real focus. The warnings prior to 911 were the highest ever. What did Bush do?
I haven’t watched live television in ages. Well, okay, there’s the 9 o’clock news, but that doesn’t really count.
Nope. It’s all spinnin’ bullshit from the White House at this point.
I have not read the full transcript yet, but from all of the news accounts and quoted excerpts I’ve seen, there is nothing really new in Clarke’s testimony/revelations. To wit:
The Clinton Administration was first made aware of the al Qaeda threat by the WTC bombing. Clinton mounted a growing and sizable effort at combatting terrorism, but was hampered by political scandal and a perceived lack of public support.
The outgoing Clinton Administration told the incoming Bush Administration that al Qaeda and terrorism would be a major problem that had to be dealt with. Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al were highly skeptical, and were more interested in playing games with Iraq than anything else.
The Bush Administration all but ignored the issue until after 9/11, whereupon they scrambled to dust off all of Clarke’s warnings and plans and carried them out posthaste, even while looking for a way to blame the matter on Iraq.
When questioned about some favorable reports he had made publicly about the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism strategies, Clarke indicated that he was merely describing the administration in a positive light, minimizing the negative, a duty he had performed for more than one president. I have no problem with someone doing so, and I think only the most naive would think this amounted to dishonesty.
But…there are statements Clarke made that could not possibly be described as selective, but basically consistent, statements of fact, not if we are to believe his later contentions. For example:
I heard this recording on the radio yesterday as well. If this is true, this cannot possibly be construed as mere spin, as just the basically true (but selective) delivery of facts. It is in direct opposition to his current contentions. The two positions flatly contradict each other. Bush either effectively ignored al Qaeda, or prior to the attacks he had developed “a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.” Clarke is a f@#$ing liar on one of these occasions. Credibility problem indeed. Seems to me it ain’t Bush who seems duplicitous relative to Clarke’s contentions.
:sigh:
The reason I started this thread was because I wanted opinions/debate based on Clarke’s full testimony, not what was on a brief news report on TV or radio.
But to your point, this is what I wrote in another thread.
Saw it. Reminded me a lot of Scott Ritter, an iron-ass kind of guy that I couldn’t personally like, but can trust. And his smack-down bitch-slap of that Thompson guy was a thing of beauty.
But the catch is: even if the WH can prove that Mr. Clarke is a scoundrel of the lowest sort, it makes very little substantial difference. Several other highly placed sources have also come forward to say that, in thier opinion, terrorism of the sort personified by Al Queda was not high on the list of priorities. As well, most of the relevent information was already available: we know how often Mr. Cheney’s committee on terrorism met, etc. etc.
I, for one, would be perfectly willing to shrug this off if the WH would be straight about it. Yes, we were caught off guard, and so was everybody else. I could buy that. I am also far more interested in how all this relates to the decision to pursue war with Iraq.
But the WH insists on portraying itself as totally on top of the terrorism thing and lauds themselves for thier distinction with the Clintonistas in this regard. The public record in no wise supports this droll conceit, but no one paid any attention, the WH got away with it because nobody cared enough to make an issue of it.
On a personal note, does any body else think Richard Armitage’s head looks more like a piece of artillery ordnanace than a cranium?
I did watch Clarke’s full testimony before the 9/11 Commission. I will say that unless you watched the actual testimony, you cannot be sure that anything reported about it is not skewed or slanted in some way. That is to be expected, of course, but even small details get bent out of hand.
For example, the now-practically-famous apology at the beginning. I’ve read accounts where it is reported that Clarke’s voice was near-breaking as he made the statement; that members of the audience “dabbed at their eyes” as he spoke the words.
The characterization of the tone of the commissioners’ voices as they asked questions: So-and-so “thundered” at Clarke. Please.
Small details, but it might warp one’s perception of the overall tone.
I think that before anyone chooses to take up an argument based upon Clarke’s testimony to the Commission, they should watch his testimony in full. Form your own opinion, without aid of the news media.
Personally, I thought Clarke was brilliant. In my opinion, he was steady under attack, and more credible than not as a result.
:sigh: I did comment on Clarke’s testimony. I did so relative to a recording of a briefing Clarke made, not a brief news report from some pundit. Ya see? Clarke’s recent testimony versus his own statements made in the past. You can see why that might be relevant, correct?
And you completely ignored my point regarding this discrepancy. Again, if this is somehow discredited, fine. But assuming the recording of Clarke’s frigging voice is real, it is completely implausible, IMO, to deem this spin. The two positions are in direct opposition. There is no way to reconcile them.
I already acknowledged in my first post that Clarke contends as you did: “So basically, he was doing what he was told to do by the Bush team and he did it well. Clarke says that he has done the same for other presidents.” I am pointing out how that is ridiculous. If it is indeed true that, “Clarke told reporters in that briefing that before the attacks, Bush’s aides had developed ‘a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.’ He said the administration also approved a fivefold increase in CIA funding for covert action to pursue al Qaeda,” then his dismissal of this contradiction is ridiculous. He must be lying on one of these occasions.
Even if he was “told to do so,” the two positions by definition contradict each other. If one is true, the other is a lie. No amount of referring to his prior statements as “spin” or selectively highlighting Bush’s efforts–or whatever other name you’d like to assign a flat statement–will change the fact that what he says now completely contradicts, is exactly opposite, what he said previously. I cannot avoid assessing the rest of his testimony within the context of this discrepancy. Why should I believe him?
If this still seems like an odd way to assess Clarke’s testimony, an assessment you requested, feel free to sigh away to your heart’s content.
Let me take out my non-partisan hat for a moment… (Damn! this fucker is dusty!)
What in the blue blazes was up with the applause from the audience? Since when is a Congressional investigation Crossfire? Did somebody steal the gavel?
It’s also from mid-2002, before the administration made clear that it was going to invade Iraq regardless of how little sense it made, then or now. Remember Bush saying “there is no Iraq invasion plan on my desk”?
Honorable men generally expect other men to behave honorably. It seems to me that Clarke was taking his boss at his word, and spinning events according to his superiors’ dictates, as defined by his job description, and as he had for previous administrations. (Priceless moment on Jon Stewart last night: “Politics trumps morality.”) How was he to know the game plan had been written years beforehand and was being carried out come hell or high water?
As someone pointed out in a another thread, the money was approved but not internally appropriated (or something like that). Basically no offsets were found to pay for the increased funding until after 9/11. See how easy it is to spin something without “flatly contradicting” yourself?
Either I’m confused, or your response is a non sequitur. My comments did not relate to Clarke’s testimony regarding post-9/11 activity, Iraq or otherwise. Whether or not Bush always intended to invade Iraq is a different (but important) issue. What I commented on was this: Clarke contended in 2002 that, (emphasis added) “before the attacks, Bush’s aides had developed ‘a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.’”
This demands no supposition of honorable men; it is a statement of what had already transpired, made by a man who was in a position to know. And it is in direct opposition to what Clarke currently contends regarding the Bush administration’s focus on al Qaeda. On one of these occasions, then, Clarke must be lying. Both statements cannot be truthful. Bush’s administration either devised a strategy for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda prior to 9/11, or they effectively ignored al Qaeda prior to 9/11. So, IMO, while we may not be certain which of his contentions is the truthful one, we can at least satisfy ourselves regarding one matter: Richard Clarke is a liar.
BTW, if the republicans want Clarke’s 2002 testimony declassified, they damn well better declassify it all and not just snippets. All or nothing, otherwise it’s just more spin.
(I understand that some reasonable redacting may be necessary for actual “secrets” – just saying they shouldn’t cherry pick what they declassify.)
Or something like that, right. Seriously, I would appreciate a credible cite clarify your point here. And that doesn’t address the other part of Clarke’s 2002 briefing, not IMO.
Clarke was the person who tried to add the phrase “eliminate” in the plan but the deputies commitee said that was too strong. It was only added back after Sept. 11.
Why the hell was a 30 year expert who knew more and fought terrorism more than anyone else put on a deputies committee when he previously ran the priniciples counter-terrorism meetings during the Clinton administration.
Clarke worked for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Must be a horrible guy. I know he was abrasive and some Clinton aides wanted him fired for being too gungho on terrorism. In hindsight, is that a bad thing? Under Bush II, he requested a transfer pre-911 because of the lack of progress in implementing the terrorism plan.
Why the hell couldn’t the Bush team do a few things (e.g., Predator program) while the “plan” was under review. A plan BTW that was essentially the plan that was given from Clinton to Bush?
So you say. You still haven’t watched his testimony.
