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

[Grampa Dave]

http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2004/march/clarke.pdf

The above link is for those who might want to Chris Shay's letter to the liar Clarke.

[BOBTHENAILER]

At Langley, this criticism rankled. The CIA's senior managers believed officials at the White House wanted to have it both ways: They liked to blame the agency for its supposed lack of aggression, yet they sent over classified legal memos full of wiggle words.

Thanks for the flag, EatB, just finished one of them, plan on buying Ghost Wars for Florida next week and will read the last one now.

[Irish Eyes]

Shays jumps in. And on the right side of something for once

I hope that Shay's can plaster himself all over the media as a direct rebuttal to the dems.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Henry H. "Hugh" Shelton -- reflecting the views of professional analysts in their departments -- argued that Massoud's alliance was tainted and in decline.

Yeah right, Madeline, that's why Osama killed him.

Great articles.

[watsonfellow]

Shays is a liberal Republican, but he is not a RINO...

He has always irked conservatives but he has never really attacked conservatives (of course I could be wrong).

I met him in '95 at a YAF summer conference in DC on the Hill........if more RINOs were like him, then I think the Party would be in fine shape.....The problem with most RINO's is not that they are liberal, but that they seem to enjoy attacking the conservative base. He has some quirky positions, but he realizes most Republicans are conservative and he does not go out of his way to attack them.

[freethistle]

Actually the bi-partisan Hart-Rudman Report was a 2-year endeavor to develop a comprehensive plan to deal with terrorism. It was initiated in 1998 when Clinton was in office through the Department of Defense.

Newt Gingrich was part of it.It was completed at the end of January 2001, so it was being done during Clinton's term but delivered to President Bush.

Bush decided to not implement it, as was his right. He appointed Vice-President Cheney to head a new task force to draw up a comprehensive plan. (I think that was in Spring, 2001. I remember reading about it).

I think Cheney just hadn't had an opportunity to begin work on it before 9/11 happened.

The Hart-Rudman Report contained the recommendation for creating the Department of Homeland Security-I don't remember what else was in it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Gaila is the source for the Links, really some great backgound.

Thanks so much GailA.

Washington must be about to go WhiteHOT!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OI guess you could say the Sept 11 attack by Bin Laden pushed our button and released our pend up emotions, that we couldn't release prior to that!

[BOBTHENAILER]

Washington must be about to go WhiteHOT!

This is gonna get mighty interestin'.

Thanks GailA, for the articles.

[cyncooper]

Let me just note: We on FR have had access to and read the Shays letter to the commission and the copies of his letters from 2000 and 2001 since they were available days ago.

Notice how the media just flat out ignored them. For as long as they could, anyway.

I don't think he'll get a media spotlight, but between Goss and Frist calling for an investigation of Clarke for perjury I don't think we've heard the last about Dick.

[NYCVirago]

Shays is a liberal Republican, but he is not a RINO...

But that's what the definition of RINO is: Republican In Name Only.

He has always irked conservatives but he has never really attacked conservatives (of course I could be wrong). I met him in '95 at a YAF summer conference in DC on the Hill........if more RINOs were like him, then I think the Party would be in fine shape.....The problem with most RINO's is not that they are liberal, but that they seem to enjoy attacking the conservative base. He has some quirky positions, but he realizes most Republicans are conservative and he does not go out of his way to attack them.

The problem with RINOs is that they vote with the Democrats. I give big props to Shays for this effort against Clarke, and I'm sure that he's a very nice guy -- he's definitely not a flamethrower, that's for sure. But he's still a RINO.

[Irish Eyes]

I don't think he'll get a media spotlight, but between Goss and Frist calling for an investigation of Clarke for perjury I don't think we've heard the last about Dick.

I hope that you are right and that Goss and Frist do not give up on this.

[cricket]

"The Hart-Rudman Report contained the recommendation for creating the Department of Homeland Security-I don't remember what else was in it."

What happened to it? Was it used as foundation for current Homeland Security?

Or maybe it was just ditched?

[cricket]

Sorry; read your post; then left. . .for errand; you answered my question!

I should have just started over. . .can understand why Bush might want to begin 'anew' so to speak.

[cricket]

"http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2004/march/clarke.pdf

The above link is for those who might want to Chris Shay's letter to the liar Clarke."

Thanks; did include address as well; but could not make actual link; but good to repeat. . .'often'!

[cricket]

"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."

We should know the other two soon, I would think. . .

Thank God, for Jim Angle and for the rest of them; can only say that we know 'what' you are. . .if not who. . .yet.

What a bunch of sorry, sorry excuses for our 'free press'.

[GailA]

I hope so...Dubya needs to take his own advice and stop swatting at flies...use a sledge hammer on them instead.

[cyncooper]

And what does that have to do with Richard Clarke?

Also you imply that because the administration did not implement the Hart-Rudman recommendations that they were ignoring the terrorism threat (forgive me if I am mistaken in what you are saying). That has been demonstrated as false through ample documentation and testimony.

So what is your point about bringing up the Hart-Rudman report?

[cricket]

GailA; could you please repost your links to Washington Post articles? Or at least the thread that they are posted on? Thanks. . .

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the ping !

Today, Rush Limbaugh said Clarke's 'apology' to the 911 victim's families was ridiculous/unnecessary and insincere. He had a caller that said that if Clarke really feels so badly for the 911 victim's families, he should DONATE his proceeds from the book (which is capitalizing on the horrible event) to the 911 victim's families ...