Posted on 03/26/2004 8:03:01 AM PST by Solson
Once again, the Star Tribune firmly reinforces its bias as a liberal talking point. I am responding to the editorial of 3/26/2004. It is filled with outright lies, misrepresentations, and as is evident, a complete lack of substantial investigation. So let's begin.
The editorial states: "From the safety of the White House -- she (referring to Dr. Condoleeza Rice) refuses to testify under oath before the commission, something Clarke has done for more than 15 hours -- Rice used classified and confidential material to throw bombs at Clarke."
As you should have known by performing due diligence, Dr. Rice has spent four (4) hours in front of this committee, but behind closed doors. Moreover, the White House has offered to have Dr. Rice testify again in front of the committee. Furthermore, as this paper and its editorial staff should know, the separation of powers means Presidential advisors, such as Dr. Rice, do not have to testify in front of any legislative body. The fact that Dr. Rice has already testified and is very willing to do so again should quiet any criticism about Dr. Rice "refusing to testify" before the commission. It's not her decision to make, and she's already testified.
Dr. Rice has NOT used any confidential nor classified material in her rebuttal to Richard Clarke. FoxNews released a transcript of a "background briefing" that Mr. Clarke made to a POOL of reporters. These briefings have never been classified nor confidential. Dr. Rice released an e-mail from Richard Clarke praising this administration as he resigned.
What exactly is the White House and its staff supposed to do when a former disgruntled employee writes a book and recalls conversations with White House officials?
You write: "None has effectively refuted a single point that Clarke, a Republican, made in his testimony and in his new book, "Against All Enemies."
Actually, many have refuted Mr. Clarke's points, including Mr. Clarke himself, Dr. Rice, Congressman Shays and others. Mr. Clarke may be registered as a "Republican" but that means very little. His only contributions, according to the FEC have been to Democratic candidates.
"Clarke's points can be reduced to this: The Bush administration sat on its hands for eight months in 2001 while Al-Qaida prepared its devastating attack on the United States. Then after the attack, the administration moved immediately to prepare an invasion of Iraq, a country the United States knew was not involved. In carrying out that invasion, the Bush administration significantly increased the threat from terrorism while undermining the effort to combat it."
Yet Clarke contradicted this in his briefings as well as in his 15 hours of testimony to the very same 9/11 commission as well as in his sworn testimony in front of Congressional committees. Certainly, this deserves to brought up.
"Explosive charges, yes, but Clarke backs them up. And he does it calmly, rationally and sincerely, while the Bush White House and its allies attempt to do the same smear job on him that it did on former Ambassador Joe Wilson and a number of other professional civil servants who refused to sing the deceitful White House party line."
Oh poppycock! Richard Clarke fails miserably to backup his claims. They contradict entirely was this man, known for his bluntness, said only months prior to his book. There was no smear job here but simply strong and forceful rebuttals to blatant lies and misrepresentations by Mr. Clarke.
"For his part in the smear-Clarke strategy, Vice President Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that Clarke wasn't "in the loop" and that he was actually working on cyber-terrorism. Rice and others say Clarke was very much in the loop. Clarke himself asked to move to cyber-terrorism out of frustration with his inability to have an impact on policies concerning Al-Qaida. "
Mr. Clarke was disgruntled because his reporting structure changed and becuase he was rebuked by people he didn't care about. Mr. Clarke, shortly after the inauguration had his reporting changed. Instead of reporting directly to the President, as he did in the Clinton administration, Mr. Clarke would report to Dr. Rice. Dr. Rice had problems with Mr. Clarke because he didn't attend staff meetings, didn't provide information in a timely manner, and was not cooperative.
From http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?from=search&item_id=302647:
"Clarke has a reputation as a loose cannon who despises bureaucracy and loathes government regulation of business. He reportedly quit in February because he wasn't offered a job in the new Homeland Security Department with as much clout as he had before. He's certainly no shrinking violet. And when it comes to cybersecurity, Clarke decidedly is an alarmist."
This is all information that has reported in the press with sources verified, something that cannot be said for Mr. Clarke's book.
"The White House has thrown so much at Clarke, and the issue is so complex in any case, that it will be difficult for many Americans to sort out the truth. They should read the testimony, all of it available online. They should read the commission staff reports. They should read Clarke's book. If they do, everyone but the president's most partisan defenders will come away convinced that Clarke is a straight shooter, and that he's right when he says Bush has done a terrible job in the war on terror. Clarke has apologized. When will Bush do the same?"
Is someone from moveon.org on your editorial staff? How about someone from Simon & Schuster or CBS? I encourage everyone to read everything they can on Mr. Clarke, including Congressman Shays comments about Mr. Clarke in front of Congressional committees, including Mr. Richard Miniters direct conversations with Mr. Clarke in his book, "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror", in Mr. Clarke's statement about the President and this administration in his background briefing, in his resignation letter and in his comments prior to wanting to get rich by selling a book. It's all very telliing.
From http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?from=search&item_id=275000
""Some former staffers in the Clinton White House understand that an opportunity was missed in the 1990s. Richard Clarke, former National Security Council counterterrorism chief, said his office urged destruction of the terrorist camps in Afghanistan after the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole. The request was denied. In an interview with the PBS show "Frontline" (excerpted recently in The Weekly Standard ), Clarke said, "That's the one thing that we recommended that didn't happen... the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened."" Destroying the camps, Clarke said, would have cut the "conveyor belt that was producing terrorists. So many, many trained and indoctrinated al-Qaida terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn't have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier. "
Speaking of telling, why didn't CBS acknowledge their financial interest in promoting Mr. Clarke's book? Why didn't ABC acknowledge that Mr. Clarke is a paid "consultant" to ABC?
Mr. Clarke lied in his book as well...many times. Dr. Rice was on a radio interview discussing, in detail, bin Laden and Al Queda at the same time Mr. Clarke said in his book that Dr. Rice acted like she never heard of al Queda before. He also described a conversation that took place with the President in the situation room when records show Mr. Bush was not in the situation room at that time.
Perhaps that's why the House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss(R-FLA)is exploring whether Mr. Clarke lied in his sworn testimony to Mr. Goss' committee.
Mr. Clarke was lying then or lying now. Either way, his credibility has been questioned, as it should have been for his many flip-flops.
Finally, let's be forthright in acknowledging that Mr. Clarke was at the helm of the counter-terror ship when we had the following:
- 1993 World Trade Center
- 1993 New York City landmark bomb plot
- 1994 Ramzi Yousef tests small bomb on Philippine Airline Flight 434 which killed a Japanese business man
- 1995 Ramzi Yousef's Operation Bojinka is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after an apartment fire occurred in the apartment
- 1995 Bombing of Military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
- 1996 Khobar Towers bombing (19 US Servicemen killed 372 wounded!)
- 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings Tanzania and Kenya killed 215 and injured 4085
- 1999 Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the US-Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 celebration terrorist attacks plot
- 1999 Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb US and Israeli tourists in Jordan and pick up 28 suspects as part of the 2000 celebration terrorist attacks plot
- 2000 The last part of the 2000 celebration terrorist attacks plot fails, as the boat meant to bomb the USS The Sullivans sinks
- 2000 USS Cole bombing killed 17 sailors and injured 39 others
- 2000 German police foil plot to attack a cathedral in Strasbourg, France
Yet, despite this track record, Richard Clarke wants us to believe the Clinton Administration took terrorism seriously? And the Star Tribune wants us to believe that, after September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration has done a "terrible job in the war on terror" despite not being attacked on our soil again?
Sincerely,
Solson.
I'm not holding my breath, but let me know if it (by some miracle) gets printed.
Clarke is a master of deception.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.