Goss Questions Truthfulness of Clarke’s 2002 Testimony- could launch investigation soon

Roll Call ^ | 3-25-2004 | Ethan Wallison

[brothers4thID]

House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that former White House anti-terror czar Richard Clarke, the author of a new book critical of President Bush’s handling of the al Qaeda threat before Sept. 11, 2001, may have lied in testimony to his committee, and said he plans to explore whether Congressional action on the matter is warranted.

Clarke’s “testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book,” Goss said. “He’s either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It’s one or the other.”

Goss added, “If he was lying to a Congressional committee, he’s got a big problem on his hands here.”

Goss did not reveal the substance of the alleged contradictions. But he waved a print-out from the Fox News Channel’s Web site that detailed apparent discrepancies between statements Clarke delivered in 2002 and allegations made in his controversial new memoir, “Against All Enemies.”

Goss suggested that the statements from 2002 more accurately reflected the substance of what Clarke had told the Intelligence panel during that time.

Goss did not specify whether the allegedly contradictory testimony had been made in closed-door session before his committee or the joint Congressional committee that conducted its own separate investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks — or both.

The earlier statements, which surfaced Wednesday, came from a recording of a “background” briefing Clarke provided to reporters while he was still a White House aide. In them, Clarke describes early and aggressive anti-terror efforts in the Bush White House that built significantly on the previous planning by the Clinton administration.

Goss was unwilling to speculate on a potential course of action, saying he is “still trying to understand” what Clarke is contending now.

“You can be sure I’ll be looking at it,” Goss said. “I don’t want people lying to Congressional committees.”

A conviction of lying to Congress carries potential jail time as a penalty.

Clarke’s newest account of the Bush administration’s anti-terror efforts before 9/11 has unleashed a fiercely contested debate over the truthfulness of the former White House aide, who served in four consecutive administrations going back to President Ronald Reagan.

Already, the anti-Bush group MoveOn.Org has launched television spots that quote Clark saying, as he launched the publicity for his book this week, “Frankly, I find it outrageous that a president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’d done such great things on terrorism. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11.”

A different assessment emerges from the briefing Clarke provided to reporters in 2002. “The Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January [2001], to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.”

Clarke added, “That process, which was initiated in the first week in February [2001], decided in principle in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al-Qaeda.”

In sworn testimony Wednesday, Clarke told the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that the discrepancies reflected the “political” role he needed to perform on the Bush administration’s behalf after the attacks.

Asked by former Illinois Gov. James Thompson (R), a member of the commission, whether he believes the comments made in the 2002 recording are consistent with the information provided in his book and in his recent press interviews, Clarke responded, “I do.”

Clarke nevertheless adjusted the tenor of his criticism slightly. In contrast to the charge that the White House “ignored” the threat from al Qaeda, Clarke said, “I feel the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.”

The Clarke transcript from 2002 emerged after the White House agreed to permit Fox News to reveal the identity of the background briefer. That action drew strong criticism from Democrats, including commission member and former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), who suggested that the White House had violated a pact it made with the press in order to discredit the former aide.

Efforts to reach several Intelligence Committee Democrats on Thursday were unsuccessful.

A publicist for Clarke’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, said, “We always stand by the books that we publish.”

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) lashed out at the White House on Thursday for what he alleged to be “character attacks” on Clarke.

“Instead of dealing with it factually, they’ve launched a shrill attack to destroy Mr. Clarke’s credibility,” Daschle alleged in a speech on the Senate floor. He did not cite specifics.

[bornintexas]

"His obvious perjury is why the rats have been out there attacking the attacks against Clark with such a vengeance today. They have got to head this off at the pass so to speak."

Isn't this how the infamous leaked "memo" said they would proceed? Your comment is exactly why they screaming to high heaven today. I will be pleasantly surprised to see Goss pull this off. But don't look to the alphabet-bs stations to report it.

[oreolady]

I couldn't agree with you more, mama, we desperately NEED some truth and the big voice4s out there, this leftist attack has gotten way beyond sanity, if we don't get it under control now, we are lost forever, the left will win, they know how to play filthy.

[rwfromkansas]

bump

[rwfromkansas]

Any handy FR excerpts from the book anywhere?

[hoosiermama]

Can't sleep was thinkin about those emails......Hope there's enough in them to hang him high!

Condi mentioned she had to email him twice to get him to attend the required security meetings....That he wasn't showing up (possibly more than twice)..........He obviously has a problem with doing what a superior wants or is it just with what Condi wanted.

I guess what I'm asking is does Clarke have a problem with Condi? Her race, her gender or her intelligence?

OTOH Did he know something and neglect to pass it on....Is that why he pointing the finger at everyone else?

I know I'm impatient!

[devolve]

If Clarke goes in front of a current committee and swears his book statements he is now repeating before the committee are true yet his 2002 Congressional hearing testimony is not true then Clarke is guilty of deliberate and wilful perjurous testimony before Congress.

Clarke cannot have it both ways and as he is now also a media consultant while testifying he is in direct conflict of interest and actually getting financial benefits for testifying.

Lets have Sean Hannity go testify as a terrorism expert while working for ABC and FNC.

Same deal Lucille!

Several things are true about Richard Clarke:

He is yellow about military action.

He lies with deliberate gay abandon.

He gets paid by all sides at once.

Viacom, Simon & Shyster, CBS, 60 Minutes, ABC, and whoever is possibly paying his "expenses" while he shills for John Kerry while working for ABC,

He is a whore for any buck lying in an alley.

He is a lifelong Republican, just like Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy are.

He is in deep stuff.

And it will get much deeper fast.

[Peach]

Commissioner Lehman said in the 9/11 Hearing that Clarke had worked with the commission privately and testified off the record for 15 or 16 hours and that his public testimony was in direct contrast to his private testimony!

He PLANNED this a year ago. He knew he was going to have his moment of fame. He testified privately saying one thing and testified publicly saying the polar opposite.

That is deliberate! Think about the planning involved in this...to work with the 9/11 Commission for a year telling them one thing privately...then come out with a book and testify to something else publicly. Amazing. And perjury, I would imagine.

[piasa]

If he's a lifelong republican how come his only political donations are to Democrats?

[devolve]

Exactly

Seminar prep

Ever hear a Republican or Conservative call a talk radio show and pull a long introduction that they are a lifelong Republican and only voted Republican until now BUT

Same lame crud all the liberal idiots use

Recall what Richard Clarke just said in his 911 hearing testimony?

In 2000 I went in to vote for GW and requested A REPUBLICAN BALLOT

What BS

There are no dem or Republican ballots

What 3rd world country has Clarke been watching elections in?

Caught in another lie.

The biggest yet.

Let him explain that away.

[jacquej]

A nagging worry is going through my mind this morning, and haven't had my coffee yet.

What does Clarke becoming an ABC consultant do for his "legal" status? Can he now claim some kind of protection because of it, like refusing to disclose sources, etc?

We are in for a rough ride, friends. Better buckle up.

[Bahbah]

"Efforts to reach several Intelligence Committee Democrats on Thursday were unsuccessful."

Thanks, hm. The above is one of my favorite sentences ever. No one will ever "reach them" unless they are bringing some money.

[MeekOneGOP]

[MeekOneGOP]

[ravingnutter]

Clarke added, “That process, which was initiated in the first week in February [2001], decided in principle in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al-Qaeda.”

Posted yesterday...Someone mentioned on talk radio that what we need to do is prove that Clarke's 2002 statement is correct in reference to the "five-fold" increase in funding for the CIA. I have been searching, but most documents I have found state that the CIA budget is "secret". However, I did find this:

The FY 2002 Intelligence Budget: A Five-Year Plan

The budget request submitted by the President includes a substantial increase for programs funded in the National Foreign Intelligence Program. The Committee believes this funding increase should represent the first installment of a five-year effort to correct serious deficiencies that have developed over the past decade in the Intelligence Community.

In this budget, the Committee seeks to highlight four priority areas that must receive significant attention in the near term if intelligence is to fulfill its role in our national security strategy. Those are:

Revitalizing the National Security Agency (NSA)

Correcting deficiencies in human intelligence

Addressing the imbalance between intelligence collection and analysis, and

Rebuilding a robust research and development program.

The budget lays out a five-year plan for addressing each of these areas.

Source (warning: slow loading .pdf file)

According to the articles I have found, the budget blueprint was unveiled by Bush in Feb 2001. The above linked article shows that Congress did not act on it until Sep 14 2001.

I am doing another search again today, since I accidentally found out where the CIA funding is listed in the budget right before I had to sign off yesterday. One of those "If I told you...I'd have to kill you" things, LOL!

[MeekOneGOP]

Piasa, thanks for your note about Clarke donating to DEMOCRATS. Some GOP, huh ? Sheesh ! What a LIAR.

In 2000 I went in to vote for GW and requested A REPUBLICAN BALLOT

Not sure where Clarke did that, but here in Texas, when I vote in the Primary elections you do have to declare either GOP or 'RAT party. And I voted in the GOP, of course ...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping.

[Pres Raygun]

There is a potentially dangerous scenario here. Goss goes ahead and investigates, all in secrecy because of the classified nature of the material. Clarke then comes out in public and admits he lied under oath to Goss's committee to protect President Bush. His conscience has got the best of him and now he has to come clean and tell the truth about the failures of the Bush administration. If Goss proceeds with a referral to the DOJ and the DOJ investigates further and then indicts Clarke, Clarke then becomes a martyr. Bush loses the election, Kerry pardons Clarke and make him the head of Homeland Security.

The Republicans must realize that Clarke didn't get to his high postion in government because he was effective in fighting terrorism, but because he was effective in playing office politics in the most political city in the world.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related Link :

Shays: Clarke Statements Revisionist

Stamford, CT -- Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT), chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, expressed concern today about recent claims by former Clinton and Bush Administration official Richard Clarke that the Bush Administration failed to respond to the terrorist threat prior to September 11.

Noting Clarke told the subcommittee in June, 2000 that there was: “no need for an assessment” of the terrorist threat, Shays stated, “Mr. Clarke is engaging in revisionist history, apparently for personal partisan reasons. The fact is, when he had the authority and responsibility to craft U.S. counterterrorism policies, he consistently failed to articulate a cogent strategy or plan to Congress.”

[mwl1]

Porter Goss is not an especially partisan member of Congress. If he is ticked off, Clarke is going to deeply regret it.

I am hopeful that Goss has had enough of this liar and will play tough -- not for politics sake but for national security.

The media won't care if Clarke is under subpoena or is being investigated, or is indicted for perjury or anything else. His usefulness to them is already over. They just won't report anything more about him -- and thus protect their lies and bias.

Clarke should have learned that liberals USE people. When you hang around with liberals, you get in trouble.

[GOPrincess]

I've been wondering too, why did Clarke think he could get away with such contradictory tales?

All I can think is he was counting on the mainstream media and the Dems to spin and cover for him as much as possible, and he hasn't been too disappointed thus far.

Given the seriousness of the conflicts, however, I don't know if he can avoid perjury problems long-term. The media will probably still spin that as the mean old Republicans "smearing" Clarke...