Shays: Clarke Statements Revisionist

Congressmen Christopher Shays; Connecticut Fourth District ^ | March 22, 2004 | Congressman Christopher Shays

[cricket]

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.”

Prior to September 2001, three national commissions - Bremer, Gilmore and Hart/Rudman - had concluded the U.S. needed a comprehensive threat assessment, a national strategy and a plan to reorganize the federal response to the new strategic menace of terrorism. The National Security Subcommittee, which Shays chairs, held 20 hearings and two formal briefings before September 11th on terrorist threats and preparedness.

Shays noted that at a briefing on June 28, 2000, he asked Mr. Clarke, then serving as President Clinton’s Special Assistant and National Coordinator, Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism, when an all-source threat assessment and strategy would be completed. His answer: “No assessment has been done, and there is no need for an assessment, I know the threat.”

Earlier that year, at the Department of Defense Worldwide Conference on Terrorism, Mr. Clarke’s assistant, Ms. Lisa Gordon-Haggerty, was asked when a national strategy to combat terrorism would be completed. She said Mr. Clarke’s office was developing a national strategy, and the plan would be completed over the next several weeks. No national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during the Clinton Administration.

“The task of responding to the terrorist threat is too important to be lowered to partisan bickering,” said Shays. “The bottom line is, the failure to respond to the terrorist threat was systemic, not political. It spanned several administrations and pervaded the intelligence community.”

“Lowering this debate to this partisan level serves neither the American people nor the cause of fighting terrorism to which Mr. Clarke is so committed,” Shays added.

Letters from the Subcommittee to Mr. Clarke following his testimony, and to Dr. Condoleezza Rice regarding concerns about Mr. Clarke's performance, are attached.

Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT) is Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Relations, and Emerging Threats, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and has held over 50 hearings on terrorism.

Letters to Mr. Clarke and Dr. Rice (PDF) http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2004/march/clarke.pdf

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Clarke is not only a lier, apparently he is also too lazy or too stupid to write up an antiterrorism plan.

[BobFromNJ]

Bump!! Great read!

[There's millions of'em]

marker

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

One more -- John Huang2's summary of Clarkes testimony ,in reply to Bill's Press POS article, funny :

Let us all now praise Richard Clarke (CLARKE KNEW! Not.)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I love that tagline.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Clarke just tries me crazy!

I have got to go do some work.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Clarke just tries me crazy!

Should BE:

Clarke just drives me crazy!

[BOBTHENAILER]

In thinking of his new novel, I'm reminded that Kimberly-Clarke makes good toilet paper.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Check this out from Newsmax:

Friday, March 26, 2004

Sen. Frist Probes 'Appalling' Clarke for Perjury

Did Richard Clarke perjure himself this week before the 9/11 commission? Congressional Republicans hope to prove so by declassifying his testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees in July 2002.

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a fiery speech today on the Senate floor.

[mombonn]

If he warned Dr. Rice about his concerns regarding Clarke just after the inauguration, then that not only supports the fact that the Bush adm. is telling the truth, it points a credible finger to the ineptness of the former administration.

It also explains why he didn't receive the promotion he conveted.

[NYCVirago]

Sometimes these RINO's are very useful. Like now. They are known not to necessarily support the president or their party. So when they do, they have a lot more credibility. Go Shays! If he warned Dr. Rice about his concerns regarding Clarke just after the inauguration, then that not only supports the fact that the Bush adm. is telling the truth, it points a credible finger to the ineptness of the former administration.

Good point. Shays is one of the least "partisan" Republicans out there -- of course, the Dems will smear him as being a far right-wing nut, but the fact that he voted against impeachment will actually help him when it comes to this issue.

[NYCVirago]

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a fiery speech today on the Senate floor.

It's about time Frist got fiery about something!

[BOBTHENAILER]

His meds finally wore off.

[Darlin']

Lets not forget, in this instance we have proof of compliciy by several members of the press in perpetuating Clarke's lies, two of whom were Andrea Mitchell and Terry Moran. As I understand it, during the "background" briefing that surfaced on Wednesday, thanks to the excellant work of Jim Angle of FNC, Mitchell, Moran and Angle were 3 of the 5 reporters present. I don't think the other two have been identifed as of yet. Anyhow, Mitchell and Moran knew Clarke was not telling the truth in the book and before the commission or he was not telling the truth at the "background" briefing. Unlike Jim Angle, they're interested in destroying the Bush adminstration and not concerned with truth.

[twigs]

It also explains why he didn't receive the promotion he conveted.

It does, doesn't it?

[aimhigh]

placemarker

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Gail , those last three articles from the Washington Post have some great detail!

Bob, Howlin, and Dave , they are a must read if you haven't read them yet.

[Grampa Dave]

I find it interesting that Shays, who in many eyes is not that great of a conservative, is nailing the Liar Clarke with these documented statements:

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.”

Prior to September 2001, three national commissions - Bremer, Gilmore and Hart/Rudman - had concluded the U.S. needed a comprehensive threat assessment, a national strategy and a plan to reorganize the federal response to the new strategic menace of terrorism. The National Security Subcommittee, which Shays chairs, held 20 hearings and two formal briefings before September 11th on terrorist threats and preparedness.

Shays noted that at a briefing on June 28, 2000, he asked Mr. Clarke, then serving as President Clinton’s Special Assistant and National Coordinator, Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism, when an all-source threat assessment and strategy would be completed. His answer: “No assessment has been done, and there is no need for an assessment, I know the threat.”

[GailA]

I won't even pretend I understood or can remember a 10th of what the washcompost articles said. They were well over my head, but they sounded like good background leading up to this mess with dickie clarke. I've posted it on several threads about clarke, I hope they will help.

Sean should get Mr. Miniter on his program, he would be very damaging to dickie's testimony.

[Boot Hill]

Interesting stuff. I'd also like to see the White House declassify that briefing that shows that Clarke perjured himself in his congressional testimony.

--Boot Hill