RICHARD CLARKE EITHER IS .. OR WAS .. A LIAR

Neal Nuze ^ | 3/25/04 | Neal Boortz

[NotchJohnson]

RICHARD CLARKE EITHER IS .. OR WAS .. A LIAR

The proceedings of the committee to elect John Kerry President continued yesterday, this time with walking contradiction Richard Clarke testifying. This is the guy that wrote the book blaming 9/11 on President Bush and praising Bill Clinton's 8 years of inaction on terrorism as somehow better. What an absolute crock...perhaps he's been hired to revise the Clinton legacy because the facts just aren't on this guy's side.

Surprisingly, this egomaniac's head actually fit through the door of the hearing room. Clarke kicked off his testimony with an apology to "the loved ones of the victims of 9/11....your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you." His statement should have more truthfully been "to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11...the Clinton administration failed you. Prior to the slaughter of your loved ones on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists, Bill Clinton turned down the direct handover of Osama Bin Laden on numerous occasions. The Clinton administration refused to allow the CIA to kill Bin Laden, with only capture as the stated policy. Those entrusted with protecting you, including myself, were abject failures who viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem. And don't forget to buy my book."

Well ... let's get to the rest of Clarke's testimony. We can basically wrap it up this way. Clarke told the commission, as he told America in his book, that the Bush administration did virtually nothing to address the threat of Al Qaeda until the attacks of 9/11. Nothing. He said that Bush was virtually unprepared to act as though it's a major problem.

Uh oh. Small problem. The White House was a few steps ahead of Clarke yesterday ... as was Fox News Channel. Jim Angle is a reporter for Fox. As the news about Clarke's book started to hit Angle remembered a briefing he received from a White House spokesman in August of 2002. That briefing was for background. That means that the seven reporters on the telephone conference call could not identify who their source was .. .only what their source said. Angle remembered that the person who delivered that briefing was ... Richard Clarke.

As luck would have it, Angle had a recording of that briefing. He listened to it and found that what Clarke was saying then was markedly different from what Clarke was saying now. So Angle went to the White House to seek permission to release a transcript of that 2002 briefing, and to identify Richard Clarke as the source. The White House, after conferring with the National Security Council, agreed.

So what did Clarke have to say in the 2002 briefing?

Let's start with a statement Clarke made to the 9/11 Commission yesterday. Clarke told the commissioners that early on in the Bush administration he told the president: " ... and I said, well, you know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want."

So .. there's Clarke telling the media and the commissioners yesterday that he had presented paperwork to Bush on a strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and was ready to discuss it. But what did he say to Jim Angle in 2002? This: "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration."

Lying then? Or lying now?

And what about this "Bush did virtually nothing" claim?

In the 2002 background briefing Clarke said: "When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that triggered the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of roll back to one of elimination." "NSPD" is National Security Presidential Directive. So Clark was telling reporters in August of 2002 that the directive from the president in March of 2001 was to stop swatting at flies ... to eliminate Al Qaeda. This is what calls doing virtually nothing?

In the 2002 briefing Clarke also told Angle and the rest of the reporters that Bush had ordered an increase in CIA resources by five times .. .including funding for covert actions against Al Qaeda. Again ... doing virtually nothing?

Here's the kicker. It comes from the transcript of the 2002 Clarke briefing ... near the end.

Jim Angle: "So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the months just after the administration came into office?

Richard Clarke: "You got it. That's right.

So .. while the terrorist threat was increasing Clinton made no changes in his plan of action against terrorism during the last two years of his presidency, but Bush got on the stick immediately. That is what Clarke is now describing as "doing virtually nothing."

Obviously Clarke is lying. We just have to figure out which statements are the lies? Was he lying in 2002 when he was working in the Bush White House? Or is he lying now when he's trying to sell a book?

Figure it out.

There's much more on the show today ... including audio. Be sure to be tuned

[NotchJohnson]

Never could understand why a former employee would do this on this level.

[backhoe]

Cross-link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104918/posts
The Clarke Effect- another Leftover from The Decade of Frauds
various FR links | 03-25-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

[bonfire]

As the Dennis Miller quipped last night: the man should be in a 12 step program. Something is SO not right about this guy.

[shield]

Rand Beers is one of Dick's best friends, they both teach at Kennedy School of whatever at Harvard. Rand Beers is a supporter of Kerry, and will be his sec of state. So Dick has conspired to help get kerry elected.

[evad]

..with an apology to "the loved ones of the victims of 9/11....your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you."

Clear evidence of megalomania beyond belief.

This Clintonian grab for attention almost made me barf. The guy is totally without credibility..he belongs on Kerry's staff.

Come to think of it, he probably IS!

[jim macomber]

As I posted earlier, this is yet one more example of allowing oneself to get shot in the foot by efforts and gestures of inclusiveness and, dare I say it, (yeccckk! - insert gagging sound) - bipartisanship.
I wish someone with far more influence than I could walk up to the President (the Republican leadership in general, actually) and kind of knock a knuckle on his forehead and get through to him/them that the other side doesn't like him, they will never like him no matter what he does, and every such act of 'reaching out' on his part is nothing more to them than a sign of weakness and an opportunity for mischief.

[marcinrochester]

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush. He always had the reputation of an America-first hard-liner.

[Socratic]

"reputation"

Sometimes reputations are deserved, sometimes not. Time usually reveals the truth. Sometimes people or nations suffer because the truth is not revealed soon enough.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[SevenDaysInMay]

Clarke is angry over Bush opennning the Iraq Front? After 8 years of the Clintons' failing cops & robbers appoach after Bill's running from (Black African battle = Black vote risk) Somalia, Clarke is angry that Bush is moving strategically to block Shiity Iran while removing the Sunni of a b!+ch Saddamn?

We face the miseries of ignoring Iran's unconventional terror war with us since Tehran 1979. Iran's proxies used the truck bomb killing our 242 Marines in Beiruit, when Reagan did nothing but cut and run.

What besides our troops would keep Iran from Iraq's lower fields and Saudi's oil fields to control more than 1/3 of the world's proven reserves? (Turkey badly wants the "Kurd's northern fields.) During the 1990's, Iran purchased 3 armoured corps from the Russian tank factories, some T-90s, mostly T-80s and BMPs, outnumbering our armoured guys by 20-30:1?

Iran has their nuclear umbrella on its way to becoming payloads for Israel once the latest generation of NK missles arrive.

Who says that we have the abiblity to defeat Iran?

Think about it, Congress.

Clarke's analysis of the increased death count under Bush makes no sense. No wonder he was on his way out.

After the Clintons' feckless response to the crime wave (terrorists as proxy for islamo-tryanical nation states), such as WTC I, TWA 800?, Saudi towers, African embassies, U.S.S. Cole, et al.), who thought that the DNC-Politburo proclaimed dunce Bush could wage war greater than the islamokazies were waging war against us?

IMO, Clarke is a bitter u$eful idiot for the DNC-Politburo's Kerry campaign, employeed by the DNC-Politburo nomenclatura and apparatchiks via the Harvard KSG ueber alles. While JFingK hides out in his mountain castle, Clarke barters with his soul for future power now Dick is ca$hing in.

This Terror War has hardly begun.

[marcinrochester]

Clarke was a registered Republican in 2000. He was actually an America-first foreign policy hawk, a Cold War warrior, involved in all sorts of covert and semi-legal actions in pursuit of American interests around the world.

Clarke is not so easy on Clinton either. I actually agree with Clarke and I think that ALL of the politicians Bush included have too much ignored terrorism. Now the ENTIRE administration is coming out trying to smear Clarke, and it sickens me because I think (I don't really know enough) that this guy is some kind of American hero.

[Dante3]

Clark is tryig to peddle his book.

Remember when the media was hysterical about Linda Tripp having a book deal even though there was no book?

[Socratic]

"some kind of American hero."

I may be harsh in my assessment, but I certainly don't agree with you. One thing I do know, is that there exists certain things which are not humanly possible. Accidents happen, evil prevails, FAILURE does not always mean CULPABILITY. My criticism is directed at ANYONE who would seek to score political points or reap financial gain from this tragedy. That is why you will not find me amongst the crowd that will say it was Clinton's fault, or Bush's fault. My grief over the profound evil inflicted upon the victims has not diminished over time. My BLAME lies with the PERPETRATORS and no one else. Rant over - Let us pray.

[Cboldt]

I actually agree with Clarke and I think that ALL of the politicians Bush included have too much ignored terrorism.

You have to be more specific when you say you agree with Clarke, because he is not entirely consistent in his assertions of what constitutes "fact."

I don't think GWB administration is ignoring terrorism, but you'll find quite a few people here who agree that other steps should be taken; e.g., profiling airline passengers, militarizing the borders, etc.

As between Bush and Clinton administrations, FWIW, there is a clear difference, and Bush is demonstrably more effective in the war against terrorism.

[Dstorm]

"Now the ENTIRE administration is coming out trying to smear Clarke"
How is this administration smearing Clarke? If you think it's by using his own words against him, you must be from DU

[marcinrochester]

"you will not find me amongst the crowd that will say it was Clinton's fault, or Bush's fault. My grief over the profound evil inflicted upon the victims has not diminished over time."

Well I agree with this completely. I don't agree with anyone who say 9/11 was Bush's fault, or Clinton's fault either. But both administrations could have done a lot more about terrorism and maybe they could have stopped bin Laden maybe not. That's why it is such a relief to me to hear Clarke apologising to the victoms' families, when ALL the politicians have been saying ever since "Don't look at me."

[Eva]

Maybe the reason lies in the fact that Clarke's teaching partner works for the Kerry campaign.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Clarke's testimony is playing well with the anti-Rice crown. Lots of people I know just think she's stuck back in the 1970-1980 time frame. They have no confidence that she has a clue about terrorism. (I think they're wrong and that Clark is just pumping his book. )

[marcinrochester]

" How is this administration smearing Clarke? If you think it's by using his own words against him, you must be from DU"
Well I don't know what DU is but there is nothing wrong with pointing out somebody's inconsistencies. Remember that Clarke's words were spoken in his role as Bush's representative and he had to emphacize the positive. What was he supposed to do, quit?

[Carolinamom]

Clarke's best buddy, Rand Beers, is ALSO a liar under oath.

See Beers "Corrects" 7 Falsehoods article at narconews.com/beersperjury1.html