Rice Forcefully Rebuts Clarke Testimony (Releases E-mail...)

CNN ^ | 3/25/04 | John King

[Coop]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that administration records -- including former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's own words and actions -- prove false his "scurrilous allegation that somehow the president of the United States was not attentive to the terrorist threat."

[Coop]

I hear you! At a meeting with some co-workers yesterday, I was appalled as they went on and on about the need to "Get Bush out of there". They seemed to be almost desperate about it. I kept my mouth shut.

Why? If you were appalled, then do something about it.

[Coop]

Critical remarks are considered "nonsense" and "insults."

No. Nonsense and insults are considered nonsense and insults. Like claiming Dr. Rice isn't qualified for her job. After something that silly, the rest of what you post is just background noise.

[rintense]

If CNN is reporting this, then it will make the networks- in about two months.

[Coop]

Suggest repealing the ban on firearms aboard commercial flights.

The Archie Bunker approach. :-) I actually heartily endorse arming airline pilots. I don't know what took the Administration so long to warm to that obvious step.

[rintense]

That info is PUBLIC knowledge... it was released to reporters two years ago. The fact that they chose not to report on it then, or recall it now, does not make it unfair. Jim Angle did the right thing.

[Coop]

If CNN is reporting this, then it will make the networks- in about two months.

Time magazine just came out with an article ridiculing Clarke (I say this having only briefly skimmed the article, but the title and intro do not appear at all complimentary to the man.)

[Diddle E. Squat]

One of the good things to come out of all this is exposing Clarke as just another lying holdover. No more can Nightline try and pass off this guy as a neutral intelligence expert, rather than the hit man that they were really using him for. They've been having him on as an 'expert' for months.

Oh yeah, and he always had the weirdest makeup job on TV.

[rintense]

ENFP. I used to be an ENTJ...

[rintense]

Think broader here... they are after Rice because she is the biggest threat to Hillary. Condi in 08 would mop the floor with Hillary. The Dems know it, and want her gone ASAP.

[Political Junkie Too]

Bob Kerrey started that yesterday just before his questioning of Clarke. Kerrey must have been alerted to it during the lunch break. He was whining that Fox shouldn't have aired it and the WH shouldn't have released it.

You gotta admire those Democrats. In the middle of trumped up hearings, they complain that the Republicans aren't playing by Marquis of Queensberry rules!

-PJ

[rintense]

Good Lord! The plan was two and a half years in the making! AQ would have carried out the plans no matter who was President.

[rintense]

But you still won't see the major networks cover it. Or, if they do, they'll use such spin and bias, they'll make Clarke out as the victim... following in the small footsteps of Tom Daschle's hysterical claim today.

[Diddle E. Squat]

If someone broke into a business due to some security oversight and killed someone, the guard on duty would be out of a job. The National Security Adviser saw 3,000 people die under her watch because she couldn't imagine the possibility of a crazed terrorist crashing a plane into a building and she is held up as a hero. Aren't we paying her to imagine those types of scenarios? If not, then what kind of national security advice is she charge with providing? And if the administration's rebuttal is that they actually were attentive to the terrorist threat, how can we explain 9/11? I'm not saying Rice is personally responsible, but it's clear that someone somewhere along the line dropped the ball.

Have you or any of your family ever had anything stolen, your house, car, business, or hotel room broken into? Have you or any of your family members ever gotten into poison ivy, ant bites, or bothered by ticks or chiggers? Have you or any of your family members ever lost keys, locked them in the car, hit anything with your car, fishtailed, or had your car hit by someone else?

If you can answer yes to any of the above, then (according to your standards that you are applying to Condi Rice) you perhaps should be 'fired' as head of your family. After all, it is your job to imagine and prepare for those scenarios.

Or perhaps there is an absolute limit to how many possibilities we can anticipate and prevent, and applying limited resources is a by nature imperfect judgement call where there will always be risks that cannot be eliminated.

[lonevoice]

If CNN is reporting this, then it will make the networks- in about two months.

I get mainstream news mostly from the radio (I get the real news from FR). Today I've heard the top of the hour newsfeed coming from both CNN and ABC. Both are reporting how Clarke testified that the president didn't take terrorism seriously. They're playing a few audio clips of Clarke's more Bush-critical testimony, with commentary that this is very damaging to Bush's reelection. Neither newsfeed today has mentioned even once that there is any controversy surrounding Clarke's testimony.

[NYCVirago]

Imagine if it were a white male Republican (I don't buy for a minute that Clarke is really a Republican) government lackey who showed such contempt for his black female Democrat boss. The NAACP would be screaming from the rooftops!

[Solson]

I think Clarke's campaign is part of a concerted effort to minimize the impact, authority, and power of Condi Rice. A strong, Conservative black woman is the biggest threat to a Democrat. Therefore, she must be stopped.

[Tennessean4Bush]

They should do a "Martha Stewart" on Clarke. Have the FBO investigate his claims and then later charge him with lying to the government in connection with an official investigation.

I agree. If he sticks to the line he did not lie in Aug 2002 then he should be arrested for lying to Congress. I mean, its one or the other. Sure, it would be difficult to convict, but it would ensure that the press would cover why he was being indicted if some in Congress indicted him.

[mrsmith]

"nothing in your post detracts from mine. "

Except for an honest person.

It's funny to see Clarke's history of distorting and lying for what he thinks is a good purpose, and to see the same in those who accept him.

Someone who wasn't a fool of his ideology might look to Clarke as and example of how government fails. The classic myopic beauraucrat with grand plans for his advancement who develops excuses instead of solutions.

But that would show the wisdom of Rice in removing him wouldn't it? And a small mind rejects that.

[shrinkermd]

LOL!! FWIW, that description sounds disturbingly close to a description of me

Both of you represent only 1-2% of the general population; hence, it is likely many in your environs will either mis-read you or not understand you.

I suspect, but have not researched Condi, and believe she is what Kiersey calls "the Field Marshall." These folks keep track of enormous amounts of information and are experts at mobilizing personnel and other resources. But don't fail to fall all in line if they are boss! They are ultimate pragmatists and are results oriented. Again, a rare type (1-2%) of the population. Think Eisenhower as a typical example.

[NYCVirago]

I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone. This tissue of lies put forth by Mr. Clarke is so transparent, a child could see through it. I think the White House should come out with guns blazing to put down this lie once and for all.

Unlike the 9/11 ads debacle, where the Bush campaign was caught unaware as to how the Dems would give talking points to the professional victims, I think the White House has done a fairly good job of proving Clarke is a liar with an axe to grind. Unfortunately, the media is doing their best to bury what the White House has to say.