Discuss Richard Clarke's actual testimony

[Stratocaster]

@AZCowboy

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.

You may be right. Pointing out that politicians and quasi-politicians lie is similar to pointing out that singers sing, and dancers dance…I do still hold, though, that Clarke crossed a line beyond spin. He wasn’t merely selective, he was deliberately attempting to lead the listener to the exact wrong conclusion (if we are to believe him now). That’s where it goes beyond spin for me. But I hear ya…

[AZCowboy]

So, if you concur, by your standard, that Bush is a liar, how did you reach this conclusion?

@Stratocaster

Seems to me it ain’t Bush who seems duplicitous relative to Clarke’s contentions.

[Stratocaster]

@AZCowboy

So, if you concur, by your standard, that Bush is a liar, how did you reach this conclusion?

My point was, and is, that pending further info, Clarke’s testimony relative to his prior statements establishes mendacity firmly for one person: himself. When the story is fully told, there may be plenty more people about whom that could be said. Right now, I am not willing to say that I believe Bush is a liar regarding these particular matters. Nor am I willing to accept the administration’s contentions at face value either. I’ll wait and see.

[rsa]

@jayjay

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.

Clarke was on Meet the Press this morning for the full hour. (Transcript here)

Here is part of what he had to say regarding declassifying documents:

Copyright© 2004, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO “NBC NEWS’ MEET THE PRESS.”
MR. RUSSERT: Is there any inconsistency between your sworn testimony before the September 11 Commission last week and two years ago before the congressional committee?

MR. CLARKE: No, there isn’t. And I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there. Let’s declassify all six hours of my testimony.

MR. RUSSERT: You would request this morning that it all be declassified?

MR. CLARKE: And I want more declassified. I want Dr. Rice’s testimony before the 9-11 Commission declassified, and I want the thing that the 9-11 Commission talked about in its staff report this week declassified, because there’s been an issue about whether or not a strategy or a plan or something useful was given to Dr. Rice in early January. And she says it wasn’t.

<snip>

Now, Dr. Rice has characterized this as not a plan, not a strategy, not a series of decisions which could be made right away, but warmed-over Clinton material. Let’s declassify that memo I sent on January 25th and let’s declassify the national security directive that Dr. Rice’s committee approved nine months later on September 4th, and let’s see if there’s any difference between those two, because there isn’t. And what we’ll see when we declassify what they were given on January 25th and what they finally agreed to on September 4th, is that they’re basically the same thing and they wasted months when we could have had some action.

<snip>

In fact, Tim, let’s go further. The White House is selectively now finding my e-mails, which I would have assumed were covered by some privacy regulations, and selectively leaking them to the press. Let’s take all of my e-mails and all of the memos that I’ve sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let’s declassify all of it.

MR. RUSSERT: As well as her responses?

MR. CLARKE: As well as her responses.

[DMC]

While in the employ of various companies, I’ve had many opportunities to share with my employers such things as:

Mary in R&D has discovered how to actually do nothing whatsoever for 40 hours a week, yet have no one notice.

Bob in Sales couldn’t sell a heater to an eskimo, but gets away with it due to inheriting a ton of existing accounts, none of which need any handholding.

Joe in Accounting uses novel methods for “cooking the books”, but seems to have learned them from his supervisors.

Not once did I share any of those things with upper-management during my employment. I save that for the exit interview, and even then I don’t always share things.

That’s actually fairly standard practice in most businesses, as rocking the boat is not often good for your career. If it turned out later that the company screwed its investors, and I was asked to testify what really went on, I’d likely come out with the truth.

Perhaps Clarke just follows standard business practices.

[AZCowboy]

@Stratocaster

Right now, I am not willing to say that I believe Bush is a liar regarding these particular matters. Nor am I willing to accept the administration’s contentions at face value either. I’ll wait and see.

George Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

So, when Richard Clarke makes statements in a backgrounder, under the direction and in support of the Bush Admnistration, that are technically correct but very misleading, he is a liar, in your opinion. But you are not willing to extend the same term to Bush, and would prefer to “wait and see”. Got it.

Personally, I hold the President to an even higher standard. Something about restoring integrity to the office of the President…

[jayjay]

@AZCowboy

Something about restoring integrity to the office of the President…

Now where did I hear that before…?

Then again, George II didn’t get a blowjob in the Oval Office, so being perpetually misleading about things like foreign policy, wars, and Al Qaeda is okay, right?

[Squink]

@DMC

Not once did I share any of those things with upper-management during my employment. I save that for the exit interview, and even then I don’t always share things.
Perhaps Clarke just follows standard business practices.

There’s a nice piece titled Clarke’s resignation letter over at the Decembrist. It describes how Paul O’Neill’s letter of resignation was actually dictated by upper management:

O’Neill drafts his letter of resignation: “‘I hereby resign the office of Secretary of the Treasury.’ One sentence.”

His communications director, Michelle Davis, says, “You can’t do that.” And proceeds to write, O’Neill says, a letter about “what an honor it has been to serve this president… a great team,” etc. “Four paragraphs of this stuff. It made me gag,” O’Neill said.

[offtopic]
Sadly, the Decembrist is not written by who I thought it might be
[/offtopic]

[Stratocaster]

@AZCowboy

So, when Richard Clarke makes statements in a backgrounder, under the direction and in support of the Bush Admnistration, that are technically correct but very misleading, he is a liar, in your opinion. But you are not willing to extend the same term to Bush, and would prefer to “wait and see”. Got it.

Personally, I hold the President to an even higher standard. Something about restoring integrity to the office of the President…

Brings a tear to my eye. Look, here’s what I said (emphasis added):

Right now, I am not willing to say that I believe Bush is a liar regarding these particular matters.

I have also said in this thread:

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.

Let me clarify in case it’s still unclear: Clarke appears to me to be telling two stories regarding the Bush administration’s focus on al Qaeda prior to 9/11. George Bush may well have lied about a number of things. He may have cheated on his SATs and filed false tax returns. But you asked me why I thought Clarke duplicitous regarding the matters under discussion, and not Bush, and I answered you. Keep in mind the thread’s topic. Clarke has made two conflicting contentions, which IMO (I know you disagree) make him a liar by definition. Which is the lie? We’ll find out. But if it’s his latter testimony, then Bush–as it relates to the matters I have commented on–has yet to utter a falsehood I am aware of. Doesn’t make him a great guy, or honest in every other way. If it makes you feel better, I believe Bush has made misleading statements during his presidency.

Bush may well turn out to be a liar regarding what he did or didn’t do relative to al Qaeda prior to 9/11, or he may not. I’ll wait and see.

[AZCowboy]

Strat, the problem, of course, of judging Bush’s words with regards to this particular matter, is that there are so few. And I sincerely doubt that there will be much, if any, more.

Here is the only one I can find with regards to this particular matter:

George Bush, quoted in Bob Woodward’s book “Bush At War”
But I didn’t feel the sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling.

Seems that Bush supports Clarke’s latest testimony.

Of course, I tend to believe that the President is ultimately accountable for actions of his administration, including the positions stated by his team of Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and McCellan with regards to this particular matter. Do you concur with that notion, and if so, shall we compare the truthfulness of their statements with regards to this particular matter? Or would you like to show me where Bush has defended his record in regards to this particular matter?

Note to Squink, see Clarke’s comments regarding his letter in the transcript to Meet The Press linked by rsa above.