Richard Clarke's Congressional Testimony Released
Remember Richard Clarke, the guy who exposed the Bush Administration's bureaucratic approach to Bin Laden and contrasted it to Clinton's? They guy who dinged the CIA even before the war? The guy who, according to Bill Frist, had "perjured" himself before Congress, because Frist asserted that in classified testimony he'd been effusive in his praise of the Bush Administration's terror efforts, then changed his story to make money?
Well, here's his testimony, finally declassified. Anyone who trusted Frist is going to be surprised. Well, they should not be surprised, because Frist himself admitted he had not actually read the testimony before he made his statements.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/clark.pdf
(Yes, I read it.)
Anyway, a good look at this document shows that Clarke spent most of his testimony discussing Clinton's efforts and the CIA responses and attitude, and when he talks about the Bush Administration, he speaks of meetings and processes, not action and praise. Just as in his books and his public statements, he holds to the truth, that the Bush Administration actually did little more than talk about approaches to terror during 2001. That is the very thing that he was discredited for, that he had changed his story, when in fact the classified testimony is consistent with his book and his public statements.
This explains why he was never prosecuted, or even charged, just accused by hordes of pundits defending the White House. Anyone who doubts the lengths to which the Republicans will go to discredit people who disagree with them should ponder this. Anyone who was taken in by the charges needs to spend some time reflecting on Clarke's charges.
After all, he told the truth.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/11/19/frist/index.html
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Which is probably why the testimony was classified until shortly after the election.
Seriously, what other possible reason could there be for this timing? There''s no lack of terrorist threat all of a sudden or anything.
Bah. This stuff always makes me angry.
If you''re not outraged, you''re not paying attention.
Indeed. After all the ruckus and accusations, all it will take is a ""Who cares? We need to get past it"" and it''ll disappear from the public discourse. In regards to attacking their opponents - and this alone - the Administration is halfway decent at handling information. They still have not released the part of the CIA/Iraq investigation that deals with the White House.
I love how the ""liberal press"" is all over this report. Oh well, yesterday''s news. It''s more important now to indemnify corrupt leaders - well, to nullify rules that might inconvenience the Party, if they are indeed indicted.
Not the greatest moments for the Republicans. I hope the end result is worth it.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
My problem is that when he went public he said that the Bush administration changed nothing that the Clinton administration did. If that is the case, and the Clinton administration was doing all of these great things, and Bush didn''t change anything, then how were they doing everything wrong?
I think he is a tool. I''ll read the stuff when I have time. I have to write a paper on why it is good for businesses to lay people off.
Because in the course of ""doing all these great things"", the Bushies stopped the activites that could have actually responded within hours or days to an attack; that is, they pulled the fangs while waiting to change the policy. As Clarke notes, the Clinton Administration put out 5 different directives, each of which could have resulted in Bin Laden''s death, but the CIA was being very risk averse. The Bushies had done nothing to act to improve this stance, and they did indeed take actions to reduce our readiness to respond.
So your characterization is incorrect, I believe.
edited for clarity
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Then why did he say that Bush didn''t change anything and continued every Clinton policy? When I have time, not this weekend, I''ll work on acounter to him.
Why would it have to be a counter? Perhaps you will change your mind when you read the report. To be open-minded rather than steadfast against what we do not know prior to knowledge is to not be blind.
In other words, read the report before you go ahead and make blind accusations.
One, he (Clarke) said during his apperance in public, that Bush didn''t change Clinton polocies.
I said earlier that I would read it. The guy has already been shown to be a liar and unhappy that he didn''t get a promotion.
Right. Because he had not had time to formulate his own by Sept. 11. That said, removing military units from their missions is not a policy change. It''s a capabilities change. That''s not a contradiction. Both are factual - he did not change policies, but he did change our ability to respond.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Blaming Bush is not the issue here, it''s whether Frist''s portrayals of Clarke''s secret testimony, portrayals that led to his demonization, were accurate. They weren''t.
And yet, the argument runs that Clinton was actively screwing things up, but Bush did all that he could, and so Clarke was somehow attempting to denigrate Bush, as opposed to being honest. This is based on misinformation, as is now obvious. Both Clinton and Bush bear blame for this - so why is it wrong to blame Bush as well as Clinton? Just because they failed in different ways?
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Of course, the core of Frist''s comments, the speech that set off the firestorm about Clarke, mentioned his suspicion that this was perjury.
Right. But the party line was that Clarke was a self-serving liar. So that leaves us with a guy who accurately described problems with the CIA before the war, as well as problems with the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration and with his *own* work, who was crucified for speaking out accurately. That''s my interest in posting this - news like this rarely filters as far into the national consciousness as do the lurid accusations that preceded.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.