It Begins: Clarke goes public with allegations of terror mishandling

[Desmostylus]

White House looks for compromise
9/11 panel to meet Tuesday without deal over Rice testimony
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 7:42 p.m. ET March 29, 2004

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., suggested that Clarke might have committed perjury because it was likely that his statements to the House and Senate intelligence committees two years ago contradicted his testimony before the Sept. 11 commission last week.

“Let’s declassify all of it,” Clarke said, echoing calls by Democrats familiar with his 2002 testimony, who dismissed the Republican demands as political posturing and said there was no substantive conflict. He said the full record would only prove that the Bush administration neglected the threat of terrorism in the nine months leading up to the attacks, which killed about 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

U.S. officials told NBC News that the full record of Clarke’s testimony two years ago would not be declassified. They said that at the request of the White House, however, the CIA was going through the transcript to see what could be declassified, with an eye toward pointing out contradictions.

Now that’s interesting. Isn’t the use of intelligence services for purely party political purposes sorta illegal? Does anyone find it strange that Bush is doing the Nixon thing, but without even trying to hide it?

[rjung]

Strange? No.
Predictable? Yes.

Though I’m sure we’ll get the apologists in here any minute now to tell us why cherry-picking the data is a good thing. Maybe they’ll recycle the arguments they were using for the OSP which got us into Iraq in the first place.

[iamme99]

So looks like Bush caves into the pressure and will allow Rice to testify under oath. Interesting what being behind in the polls will do to the “principles” you say you hold most dear and cherished! :rolleyes:

White House Agrees to Let Rice Answer Questions Publicly
By PHILIP SHENON and DAVID STOUT

Published: March 30, 2004

WASHINGTON, March 30 — The White House said today that it will allow President Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify in public and under oath before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, reversing its position that she was prevented from doing so by executive privilege.

In addition, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will testify in one joint private session before all 10 commission members, with one commission staff member present to take notes. The White House had previously said that the President and Vice President would appear only before the chairman and co-chairman.

Link

[manhattan]

@minty green

Isn’t it amazing how posters such as Sam, John, and manny can’t seem to pry themselves away from the character attacks on Clarke?

I’ve made no attack on Clarke’s character and I object in the strongest possible terms to your intentional and malicious mischaracterization of my posts on this subject.

[John_Mace]

@manhattan

I’ve made no attack on Clarke’s character and I object in the strongest possible terms to your intentional and malicious mischaracterization of my posts on this subject.

I’m also wondering which of my posts (there weren’t many) in this thread constituted a character attack against Clarke, assuming it was me to whom minty was referring.

[flickster]

@iamme99

So looks like Bush caves into the pressure and will allow Rice to testify under oath. Interesting what being behind in the polls will do to the “principles” you say you hold most dear and cherished! :rolleyes:

Hmmm, all the latest polls I’ve seen have Bush leading by 4 points
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-03-29-poll_x.htm

[minty_green]

@manhattan

I’ve made no attack on Clarke’s character and I object in the strongest possible terms to your intentional and malicious mischaracterization of my posts on this subject.

Intentional? Malicious? Take a valium or something, man. I must have gotten you confused with someone else. Things like that happen from time to time, you know.

[minty_green]

As for John Mace, I refer you back to your comments on his credibility on page 3. That was, of course, back when the Bushies were trying to use Clarke’s White House-requested spin in 2002 to avoid the necessity of having to rebut any actual facts in 2004. My frustration with that transparent–and perfectly predictable, with this administration–tactic was obviously showing that night. My apologies if I painted with too broad a brush.

[iamme99]

@flickster

Hmmm, all the latest polls I’ve seen have Bush leading by 4 points
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-03-29-poll_x.htm

4 points is within the margin of error. Essentially both are equal, which is a pretty poor performance for an incumbant president. But the only thing that matters is who gets the most electoral votes come Nov. Anything can happen between then and now but if jobs keep getting lost, gas prices keep rising and American lives keep getting lost in Iraq, I think Bush will wind up in the same shoes as his daddy - one term only.

[elucidator]

As regards Mr. Clarke’s assertion about the global priorities of the Bushivik team:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer

"On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address “the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday” – but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration’s thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text…"

Could this be the red-headed stepchild they were trying to keep locked in the attic when polite company was around? Perhaps the committee will inquire futher about this, sort of clarify things. Ms. Rice is reportedly eager to answer questions. We await with calm aplomb.

[iamme99]

Chris Matthews on Hardball spent the whole Wednesday show interviewing Richard Clarke. I think Clarke handled himself very well. He was polite but forceful in defending his viewpoint.

The complete transcript is here: Richard Clarke on ‘Hardball’ (March 31, 2004)

Closing excerpt:

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the concerns you might have—I’m not going to ask you how you’re going to vote this time because, maybe like a lot of people, you’re going to decide in November. But let me ask you this. If this administration gets reelected with its world view that we’ve talked about for the last hour, going into Iraq—what country’s next?

MR. CLARKE: Well, that’s the scary part. They made a huge mistake, about as big a mistake as you can make. Because here they have this war on terrorism and they dropped it and started a war on Iraq, which made the war on terrorism harder—

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, what’s the next war? Is it Iran? Or is it Syria?

MR. CLARKE: If the same people are around, it could be Iran, it could be Syria. And I fear that they haven’t learned from their mistake.

[Desmostylus]

@flickster

Hmmm, all the latest polls I’ve seen have Bush leading by 4 points
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-03-29-poll_x.htm

Here’s something for you, flickster. See if you can spot any kind of trend in this graph of Bush’s approval rating:

Occasional graphology
Data from pollingreport.com.
Approval Ratings, G W Bush

[Apos]

I thought this Somerby observation shows how fundamentally dishonest and ridiculous many of the attacks on Clarke are:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040104.shtml

SANGER: While the book describes the Situation Room [on September 11] as sparsely populated, Mr. Miller and Mr. McCormack ticked off the names of at least a dozen people who came in to work the phones and help figure out the location of suspect aircraft.

Okay, sounds fishy, right? But now look at the actual passage in Clarke’s book:

CLARKE (page 10): The White House compound was empty now except for the group with Cheney in the Easy Wing bomb shelter and the team with me in the West Wing Situation Room: Roger [Cressey], Lisa [Gordon-Hagerty] and Paul [Kurtz] from my counterterrorist staff, Frank Miller and Marine Colonel Tom Greenwood and a half dozen Situation Room staff.

Which adds up to, well 12 people. While the book describes the sparse staffing as being 12 people, and to prove he’s got poor credibility, they rebut him with “well, no there were at least 12 people in the room.”

And yet nonsense like this somehow gets into the public debate guaging whether Clarke is credible or not.

[John_Mace]

@minty green

As for John Mace, I refer you back to your comments on his credibility on page 3. That was, of course, back when the Bushies were trying to use Clarke’s White House-requested spin in 2002 to avoid the necessity of having to rebut any actual facts in 2004. My frustration with that transparent–and perfectly predictable, with this administration–tactic was obviously showing that night. My apologies if I painted with too broad a brush.

Yeah, you might want to narrow your brush a bit. Especially since the post in question (on pg 2, not pg 3) was an attempt to explain to Sam that Clarke was intentionally spinning Bush’s actions in a positive light in '02.

[Apos]

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040204.shtml

Bob Somerby points out that Woodward’s book, which the White House was pleased with, essentially confirms many of the things people are mock outraged about Clarke claiming.

I have to ask: how many have actually read Clarke’s book? I’m surprised that some of the nastier things he’s had to say haven’t become an issue:

-He describes coming out of a meeting with Aschroft and him and a friend being totally incredulous 'he’s putting us on right, he can’t really be that slow?" That seems WAY nastier a personal than implying that Rice didn’t know who Al Qaeda was (a charge everyone claims to have refuted, but had so far failed to find any reference to Al Qaeda in anything she said before Clarke’s telling her)

-Wolforitz comes off as a total psycho. When Clarke says that sometimes, like when dangerous ideologes like Hitler tell us what they intend to do, they really intend to do it. Wolforitz, who has just told Clarke that he’s crazy for focusing on Al Qaeda when Iraqi is the big threat, jumps all over Clarke telling him “I resent you linking this nobody Bin Laden to the Holocaust and saying he’s as bad as Hitler!!” I wonder why Wolfie has never criticized his pals for widely and constantly comparing Bin Laden to Hitler post 9/11?
Wolfie also is accused of getting the ambasador to Indonesia fired because he was making too many waves about Al Qaeda, shaking things up too much (god forbid!)

[manhattan]

@minty green

Take a valium or something, man.

Well, certainly one possibility is me taking a prescription drug without a prescription, an illegal act, but I think I’ve got a better idea. How about you learn to read? You allege to be an attorney, trained in careful reading. Assuming that that is not a lie, I stand by my assertion that your mischaracterization of my posts was intentional and malicious.

[elucidator]

Heavens, Manny, why would anyone admit to being a lawyer if it weren’t so?

[flickster]

Clarke’s credibility takes another hit:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001901197_ressam12m.html

According to a former customs agent who was involved, Clarke’s version, laid out in one chapter of his book, wrongly implies they were on “heightened alert” and somehow looking for terrorists.

“No,” was the terse reply of Michael Chapman, one of the customs agents who arrested Ressam, when asked if he was aware of a security alert.

“We were on no more alert than we’re always on. That is a matter of public record,” said Chapman, now a Clallam County commissioner.

A review of the trial testimony of Chapman, Dean and two other U.S. customs agents involved in the arrest turned up no reference to a security alert.

Rather, it supports Chapman’s assessment that agents thought Ressam was smuggling drugs when they opened the trunk of his rental car and found bags of white powder buried in the spare-tire well. Only after finding several plastic black boxes, containing watches wired to circuit boards, did anyone suspect a bomb.

Dean has said repeatedly she singled Ressam out for a closer look because he was nervous, fumbling and sweating. Ressam has since told agents he was sick, and federal sources have confirmed Ressam had apparently gotten malaria while at terrorist-training camps in Afghanistan.

Clarke’s version of that night contains other errors. Some of them are minor. But one implies national-security officials knew more about Ressam’s plans than they could have at the time:

• Clarke wrote that Ressam bolted and left his car on the ferry. In fact, Ressam drove off the ferry and ran when he was stopped for inspection.

• Clarke reported Dean ran after Ressam. Actually, two other agents gave chase.

• More significantly, Clarke wrote that agents had found “explosives and a map of the Los Angeles International Airport” in the car, implying the threat to the airport was known almost immediately.

There was no map in the car. A map of Greater Los Angeles was found days later in Ressam’s apartment in Montreal. Nobody had a clue for nearly 11 months that Los Angeles was a target.

Circles scrawled on the map around three L.A.-area airports weren’t found until October 2000, after the document had been turned over to the FBI. It wasn’t until Ressam began cooperating in May 2001 that his actual target was known for sure.

In fact, in the weeks after Ressam’s capture, officials in Seattle were so unsure about his actual target that then-Mayor Paul Schell canceled the city’s popular New Year’s Eve celebration at Seattle Center, thinking the Space Needle could be a target.

• Clarke reported Canadians had somehow “missed” the existence of Ressam’s cell of radical Algerian Muslims in Montreal and that, after Ressam’s arrest, the Canadian government cooperated.

According to testimony at Ressam’s trial and interviews with Canadian intelligence officials, Ressam and the cell in Montreal had been under surveillance for at least two years before Ressam’s arrest. But the Canadian Security Intelligence Service never told anyone.

[blowero]

Let’s back that quote up a couple paragraphs:

Clarke, who worked for both Clinton and Bush, said he convened the Counter-terrorism Security Group, which he chaired, and sent out warnings both overseas and to local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies around the country to be on heightened alert for suspicious activity. “And then we waited,” he wrote.

“The break came in an unlikely location,” Clarke wrote, describing Ressam’s arrest by customs agents during a “routine screening.”

According to a former customs agent who was involved, Clarke’s version, laid out in one chapter of his book, wrongly implies they were on “heightened alert” and somehow looking for terrorists.

“No,” was the terse reply of Michael Chapman, one of the customs agents who arrested Ressam, when asked if he was aware of a security alert

Here’s the problem I’m having with this supposed impeachment of Clarke (and I apologize for being one of the people who hasn’t read his book): According to the article, Clarke, in his book, claims that he “sent out warnings” to be on heightened alert. But the article says that implies that “they” were on “heightened alert”. Which “they” is that? The White House, or the customs agents? The article goes on to claim that there was no heightened alert.

O.K., but if you want to prove that Clarke’s contention is false, wouldn’t that be better done by stating that the customs department didn’t receive any warnings? I’m bothered by this extra step of saying that sending warnings implies a higher stage of alert, and no such stage of alert existed. Why don’t they just say “no warnings were sent”? If sending warnings and having higher alert stages are one and the same, then why change the wording? It makes me suspect that a little bait and switch thing is going on.

[Before anyone pounces on me, I said it makes me “suspect” it, not that I know it for a fact. Thank you.]

[rjung]

Go easy on **flickster;[/]b he’s been searching for weeks for something to discredit Clarke with, and now he’s managed to scrape together this little flimsy balsa-wood broadsword to slay the evil turncoat traitor Dickie Clarke with.

At least humor him a little before you crush his hopes.