So you’re saying that you have read the entire testimony? Sorry that I had a different impression, but your questions have been answered by the testimony.
But if you have read Clarke’s testimony, then please continue.
Stratocaster:
What part of “This thread is for people who have actually seen Richard Clarke’s testimony in front of the 911 commission… please don’t pollute this thread with “I think”, “I feel” based on reading news synopses of Clarke’s testimony,” are you having trouble understanding, son? If you want to discuss Clarke without having read his testimony directly, there are numerous threads both here and in the Pit wherein you can rant on to your heart’s content.
The relevant section is taken directly from Clarke’s testimony, which I posted previously (with a link) in this thread. To quote from it once more, then:
You’re welcome.
Now, for the last time: either read Clarke’s testimony, or find another thread.
Want to? Yes. Able to? No.
Dialup connection?
You can still read the transcript at the link in my OP.
And for those who missed the testimony live, C-SPAN will air the Richard Clarke testimony tomorrow (Sunday) from 10-12:30 EST. Powell and Albright’s testimony willl be replayed today, starting in the next few minutes.
Oops, forgot to reply to this. The applause was from the relatives of 9-11 victims. I think even those heartless beltway insiders couldn’t bring themselves to gavel them into submission.
[nitpick]
It’s not a Congressional investigation, but rather supposedly an independent commission.
[/nitpick]
And also, belated thanks to AZCowboy. There is your chance to watch the actual testimony. Please do.
What part of “I am commenting on Clarke’s testimony, in particular relative to statements Clarke himself made previously–i.e., NOT based on reading a news synopsis” are you having trouble understanding, son?
Credible cite, I should think was obvious from my perspective, would not equal a comment from Clarke himself. And I do not contend it’s impossible that such a cite exists, merely that if someone (other than Clarke) makes this contention, is there a source that can clarify the process? I’d appreciate it. Couldn’t find one myself. Oh! And you have not reconciled the other comment I cited, I notice. Could that be because it’s not possible to do so?
Anyway, you should really report me to a mod. This is outrageous, my assessing Clarke’s actual sworn testimony, exactly as the OP requested. And that I wouldn’t quiver and quake at your “for the last time” ultimatum, well, my gosh, this is appalling. Especially with how tough you sounded, and all.
No, I don’t believe I did say this. Is that a new requirement, that one must have read the testimony in its entirety? You didn’t mention that in the OP. Do I have to do so in one sitting? Is there a time limit? Should the source be in a specific font type? Sorry, it’s getting tough to follow the rules in this thread, and as it is, I have Mr. Svinlesha’s panties in quite a bunch.
Again, if the comments I made on Clarke’s testimony seem fallacious or weak or whatever, please feel free to show why that is so. Again, IMO (based on Clarke’s testimony that I have read), it is not possible to reconcile his contention that al Qaeda was effectively ignored prior to 9/11 with his other statement, that a strategy for rapid elimination had been devised. You, apparently disagree.
And, for the third or fourth time, I’ll add that if this briefing quote is discredited, then I’d have to reassess my position.
I believe that I can’t enforce any requests that I made in the OP. But this is what I wrote:
I’ve got no beef with you, but the point of this thread was to discuss the actual and complete testimony. I guess I should have spelled out in more detail that I wanted responders to have watched/read the entire thing.
But I am not a mod, so hijack away if you are so inclined.
I’m not saying that your questions are a hijack, just that I had asked in the OP that folks review the entire testimony as a prerequisite before joining the discussion.
Nope, I have no beef with you either; you’ve been entirely civil. If you think my contribution has been off point, I disagree. But I also think I’ve made my point, whether anyone agrees with it or not, as emphatically and clearly as I could have. So, I’ll move along, unless I come back and see any snarkiness fired in my direction from those less inclined toward civility. Not everyone follows my serenely wise example, you see. 
Well, not to be a stickler, but one last comment before I go: Sorry, but you made no such request. Please re-read the OP. You asked for people to comment on the actual sworn testimony of Clarke. That’s what I did.
Damn that lack of an edit function and I admit that I suck at writing OPs. But why not read, or watch tomorrow on CSPAN the entire testimony?
If so, you shouldn’t have put this in the OP (my boolding):
I may just do that.
John, there were four people in front of the commission that day. That is what what I meant when I suggested that if one had the time they should listen to the enitre day’s testimony as well.
I didn’t realize that I had to have a lawyer and a proofreader to create an OP.
Live and learn I guess.
Stratocaster, I’m a bit confused about what contention you are still waiting to be refuted. If I’m following this, you made two points:
-
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.
Right? The second one has already been addressed, and I believe to your satisfaction (that such funding was approved, but never appropriated, since the Administration never found the budgetary offsets).
The first one is clearly addressed in the testimony, and I struggle to see what you are failing to grasp. The “Bush aide” in question is none other than Richard Clarke himself. He developed the plan, but it wasn’t executed until after 9/11. His statement is factually correct, and entirely consistent with his previous testimony, his current testimony, and his book.
That both statements were factually correct, but nonetheless misleading, is what spin is all about. Yet you conclude, “Clarke is a f@#$ing liar on one of these occasions.” Do you apply the same logic to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, when in the same day he stated that, “Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” and then later told reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances?
How do you reconcile those two statements? Can you justify that with spin?
Well, yes, I would apply the same logic, assuming Senator Frist isn’t suffering from some form of dementia. He is not being truthful, he likely has an agenda he’s advancing, and being truthful isn’t tantemount. Let me be clear: I am not making a judgment regarding whether or not Bush and his pals executed the proper pre-9/11 strategy. I want more facts, and I believe it’s possible that both administratuions have much to answer for.
My only point is that Clarke’s statements are beyond spin. You may disagree. Fine. I think they are discrepant to the point of dishonesty, that they were deliberately intended to mislead, to convince the listener of something that was flat-out not true (if we are to believe him now). They were not merely selective tidbits used to highlight only the favorable. In doing this, Clarke is in the company of many on both sides of the aisle. Doesn’t change the fact that he’s a liar. Again, that’s my assessment of his testimony, not of Bush’s effectiveness in fighting terrorism.
Personally, I like Frist’s idea of declassifying the 2002 testimony Clarke gave and comparing it. I like Graham’s idea of declassifying as much of the administration’s papers involving 9/11 as possible even more. If we’re going to go in and look at Clarke’s old testimony again in the name of clarifying this situation, let’s look at as much of the background to the situation as possible as well.
Of course, this arcanophile administration will fight tooth and nail to keep anything but a carefully edited version of the 2002 testimony from seeing the light of day, but stranger things have happened…
Strat, we are pretty close then, though I don’t have any trouble recognizing it as spin. I certainly don’t give sufficient credence to form belief based on Clarke’s words - now or then; however, I do find his recent testimony quite credible. His testimony should be easy to refute, and the Administration has no success so far. They have yet to even come up with plausible explanations.
You may feel comfortable branding him a liar. If you do, and apply the standard fairly, then he has pretty good company with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and probably any elected official in history. Not sure the label remains useful at that point.