Transcript: Sen. Frist Speech on Clarke

FOX News ^ | March 26, 2004 | Senator Bill Frist

[quidnunc]

The following is a transcript of a speech made by Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) regarding the testimony of former top counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke before the Sept. 11 commission on March 24, 2004.

Mr. President, there has been much fulminating in the media and by some Senators on the other side about a new book by a former State Department civil servant named Richard Clarke. In this book, released for sale by the parent company of the CBS network, Mr. Clarke makes the outrageous charge that the Bush Administration, in its first seven months in office, failed to adequately address the threat posed by Usama bin Laden.

I am troubled by these charges. I am equally troubled that someone would sell a book, trading on their former service as a government insider with access to our nation's most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering that this nation endured on September 11, 2001. I am troubled that Senators on the other side are so quick to accept such claims. I am troubled that Mr. Clarke has a hard time keeping his own story straight.

I do not know Mr. Clarke, although I take it from press accounts that he has been involved in the fight against terrorism for the past decade. As 9-11 demonstrates, that decade was a period of growing peril, and unanswered attack, against the United States.

It is awesomely self-serving for Mr. Clarke to assert that the United States could have stopped terrorism if only the three President's he served had better listened to his advice.

In fact, when Mr. Clarke was reportedly at the height of his influence as terrorism czar in the Clinton Administration, the United States saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on a U.S. Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia, the attack on two U.S. embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and the planning and implementation for the 9-11 attack. The only common denominator throughout these 10 years of unanswered attacks was Mr. Clarke himself, a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and shift blame.

While the reasons may be open to debate, the previous Administration's response to repeated attacks by al Qaeda was clearly inadequate — a few cruise missiles lobbed at questionable targets. Al Qaeda could only have been encouraged by their record of success and the absence of a serious or sustained response from the United States.

After 10 years of policies that failed to decisively confront and eliminate the threat from Al Qaeda, Mr. Clarke now suggests that in its first seven months in office the Bush Administration is to blame. That sounds like finger pointing and blame shifting to me.

But this has not always been Mr. Clarke's view of the events leading up to September 11. This week a transcript was released of a press interview Mr. Clarke gave in August of 2002. I will submit for the record the full transcript, but let me just cite a portion of this interview reviewing in glowing terms the policies of the Bush Administration in fighting terrorism:

-snip-

[Sunshine55]

Stick a fork in Clarke....he's done.

[Sunshine55]

Maybe I should rephrase that and just say "Fork him"

[Peach]

1. Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said that in June 2000 Clark told the subcommittee there was "no need for an assessment" of the terrorist threat.

Three national commissions concluded the US needed a comprehensive threat assessment and a national strategy. Shays held 20 hearings pre 9/11 and on June 28, 2000 he asked Mr. Clarke, then serving as Clinton's Special Assistant and National Coordinator, Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism, when an all source threat assessment and strategy would be completed.

Clark answered "No assessment has been done, and there is no need for an assessment. I know the threat."

2. In 2000, the Department of Defense Worldwide Conference on Terrorism asked Mr. Clarke's assistant when a national strategy on terrorism would be completed. The assistant responded that a strategy was being developed (in 2000 - the last year of the Clinton presidency). However, no national strategy to combat terrorism was every produced during the Clinton administration.

3. 911 Commissioner Lehman noted to Clarke on Tuesday that his 15 hours of private testimony differed substantially from his public testimony. So substantially that Lehman told Clarke he couldn't believe it. As a result of that, the White House is seeking to declassify whether Clarke lied under oath.

4. On page 127 of Clarke's new book "Against All Enemies", Clarke notes that it's possible that al Qaida operatives in the Phillipes "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building." Intelligence places Nichols there on the same days as Ramzi Yousef, and "we do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippines stay and were deadly when he returned."

And yet, the Clinton administration focused exclusively on homegrown terrorists, and never talked publicly about this matter. Laurie Mylroie, formerly of the Clinton administration, and others, have since talked about the Iraqi connection to the OKC bombing frequently. Yet your news organization has been largely if not completely silent.

5. Despite Clarke's assertion that he is non-partisan, a few moments research into public records indicates that Clarke has only donated to Democrat's campaigns, never to Republicans.

[Aeronaut]

Stick a fork in Clarke....he's done.

For us, yes. But, as long as he's a "sweet-boy" with the partisan media, he hurts the President.

[fishbabe]

if he lied to congress,will the pubbies go after him like the dims went after oliver north???????

[GailA]

Some googling dug up these

losing bin laden

Losing bin laden

Gary Aldrich losing bin laden

The next is a 3 part VERY long series by the wash compost

Ghost Wars : The CIA and Osama bin Laden, 1997-1999 A Secret Hunt Unravels in Afghanistan

The CIA and Massoud. Legal Disputes Over Hunt Paralyzed Clinton's Aides

Flawed Ally Was Hunt's Best Hope

[PRO 1]

It would be nice if you could source your information. Is this in a published article or a personal compilation? Thanks for the post.

[OldFriend]

Senator Frist gave this speech with the most perfect demeanor. He was so dignified and made Clarke seem all the more despicable.

[ladyinred]

It is awesomely self-serving for Mr. Clarke to assert that the United States could have stopped terrorism if only the three President's he served had better listened to his advice.

Oh really? Seems to me it is only President Bush the mediacrats are accusing of this.

[Peach]

Rep. Shays press release:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105656/posts

Insight Magazine article June 2001:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1105829/posts?page=1

Commissioner Lehman rips into Clarke (I know it's a NewsMax article but it quotes Lehman from Tuesday and I can't find the link to the full 911 Commission testmimony, not that you'd necessarily want to read through all that anyway).
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1104605/posts

Not mentioned in my e-mail to the media, but an interesting interview with former CIA director Woolsey and Lou Dobbs:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1104121/posts

Clarke's comment about a linkage between the OKC bombing and foreign terrorism. (Note: Although Clarke has no credibility left, there are many people within the former Clinton administration who believe there was a foreign connection as well. Several Congressmen want to reopen the investigation. The book The New Jackals by Simon Reeve, written in 1999, before this all became a political football, details this matter quite well).
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105679/posts

[xzins]

Clarke is, apparently, the most self-serving little man that I've ever run across in my lifetime.

[worrywart]

I am so glad Frist nailed him about apologizing to the victims!

I watched two 9-11 widows on Good Morning America the other morning and they were saying how much his apology meant to them. I feel for those ladies and their terrible loss, but it was nauseating that they felt Clarke's apology actually helped them.

As Frist says "Finally, It is understandable why some of the families who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attacks find Mr. Clarke's performance appealing. Simple answers to a terrible tragedy; to the very human desire to find an answer why; why on that beautiful fall day two and one half years ago a series of events happened that shattered their lives forever.
In his appearance before the 9-11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility"

I've wondered for a long time whether Frist is the right man for the job he holds. This well-worded testimony goes a long way towards convincing me he is. Now, I hope he backs up his words with actions! ww

[gitmo]

Bookmark for manana.

[mathluv]

Some caller on Rush today was impressed by it.

[Jorge]

This is dynamite. If anyone doubted Frist would be better than Lott in the heat of political war, this should convince them.

Frist is right on the money.

[baseballmom]

bookmarked and bumped

[Atchafalaya]

I didn't see it, but reading the transcript implied the tone, tenor and demeanor you describe. A well thought and delivered statement of irrefutable facts!

[GottaLuvAkitas1]

"if he lied to congress,will the pubbies go after him like the dims went after oliver north???????"

No way! He will get a free pass. The Dems will get by with this like they have since and before the 1940's when they hired and promoted Soviet spies in our Gov.. It didn't matter then when the world knew they lied and put our country in grave danger and it won't matter now.

I can't even begin to express the rage I have for these Godless, treasonous, bunch of freak show, life sucking professions, called the grassroots Dem. party.