Panel to reconsider Clarke statements

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 4-7-04 | James G. Lakely

[Indy Pendance]

The September 11 commission will look at the discrepancy between the testimony of Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered the threat of al Qaeda "urgent" and its final national-security report to Congress, which gave the terror organization scant mention.

[Mo1]

The White House didn't look at whether Clark wrote the truth or not ..

The book was reviewed for national security reasons and to make sure no sensitive information was given out .. that is not uncommon

Karen Hugh's book was reviewed in the same way and if I recall, Karen said the only thing they took out of her book was a phone number

[Indy Pendance]

I love it!

[Getsmart64]

The WH just makes sure that no classified info is released...he can make up any accustation he wants...as long as classified info isn't released....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

They would just check to make sure no classified data was released.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Third time is the charm!

[Dolphy]

Mr. Clinton wrote in the preface, "We are blessed to be citizens of a country enjoying record prosperity with no deep divisions at home, no overriding external threats abroad, and history's most powerful military ready to defend our interests around the world."

Let me translate. "I am blessed to be in charge of country which is experiencing irrational exuberance. They don't know that Wall Street is cooking the books, heck my friend Terry made a mountain of money on one of those deals. But back to the point, they don't know that the books are cooked and that these Muslim extremists are a real threat to anybody but people way off in foreign lands. And of course they don't care about that because of this irrational exuberance thing I got goin'.

Anyway I got this guy, his name is Dick which perfectly describes him, and I let him come to all my meetings so he thinks he's real important chasing down a Muslim extremist or two. Ain't no way he's going to make a dent in that problem but I got myself covered should anything happen before I get out of the White House."

[wayne_shrugged]

I hope "Classy Condi" makes the "commission" looked like chopped liver and reveal them for the hypocrites they are...

[piasa]

Kerry looks like death warmed over in that photo... must be pre-botox

[piasa]

Is there any truth in what my co-worker says, I have trouble believing that the Whitehouse would ok that sort of drivel

The CIA, etc have a say in books by public officials concerning their stay in their jobs. They just makes sure that there is nothing CLASSIFIED that was inadvertently slipped into the book- they don't care about a book's bullshiess content, so a work of fiction with get through pretty much unscathed.

[kayak]

Who Lost Osama? : Richard Clarke is far tougher on the Clinton failures than advertised.

"THIS IS THE STORY, from my perspective, of how al Qaeda developed and attacked the United States on September 11," Richard Clarke begins Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, his new book that has been widely ballyhooed as the bomb that will destroy President Bush's reelection campaign.

In fact, only in his preface and the book's final sixty-five pages does Clarke's partisanship boil over into the invective, vitriol, and spite that have transformed this career national-security hawk into the anti-Bush Democrats' American Idol. The rest of the book, Clarke's unwitting indictment of the Clinton administration's terrorism policy, ought to make the whole of the nation vote for four more years of Bush.

[adam_az]

HEY BILLY JEFF!!!!

[adam_az]

"A guy I work with keeps saying that Clarkes book was given to the White house for approval before it was released, and the White house approved the book just the way it is, ergo what Clarke is saying is all true."

NO your workmate is wrong, they only vet it for national security related info - to make sure not to reveal sources and methods, period.

Bush gave them the rope to hang themselves. Again.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Thanks for the ping!

Liberalism fighting the WOT

[malia]

The White House didn't look at whether Clark wrote the truth or not...

You're correct - national security is/was their only concern. Also, I had read that they were not under oath for that hearing and Dr. Rice will not be under oath for Thursday's hearing.

I have heard Ben Vineste has leaked parts of Dr. Rice's four hour hearing in which he did not attend.

The media is now having a cow over President Bush and Vice President Cheney appearing together/at the same time for their hearing. No respect to the fact that they are even testifying.

BTW When I put this thru spell check 'Cheney' comes up as a mispelled and my choice is 'Chaney'. I checked with my bumper sticker and my way is correct. Where do I report abuse!!!

[Mo1]

The media is now having a cow over President Bush and Vice President Cheney appearing together/at the same time for their hearing. No respect to the fact that they are even testifying.

Also take note .. they aren't reporting about Clinton and Gore testifying

I'm not surprised at how they are attacking Presdient Bush

O'Reilly Factor - Left-wing "reporters" met with John Kerry in Al Franken's apartment

[GOPrincess]

I believe the White House screened the book to make sure there were no classified security leaks, not to verify the accuracy of the contents.

[malia]

Yea, I saw this a week or so ago, unbelievable!!! We have a double fight on our hands until Nov.

[Mo1]

Yes we do and we will get the truth out to the people

[Lancey Howard]

Mr. Black said he expects Miss Rice to "put to rest Mr. Clarke's charges. His credibility is pretty much shot," Mr. Black said. "I'm sure Dr. Rice will finish off what is left of it when she testifies."

All that's needed to "finish off" Clarke's credibility is his own words.
However, it will be interesting to see how Condi spits in his face, and it will be funny to watch partisan scumbags like Kerrey, Ben-Veniste, and Gorelick try to prop Clarke up and defend him.

[GretchenEE]

The Clinton document consistently characterized terrorist attacks against Americans and U.S. interests as "crimes" and outlined how it was using diplomatic and economic pressure to bring the "perpetrators to justice."

That was working so well I just don't understand why we abandoned it as national policy.

Signed,
John Kerry
Senator from the State of Instability