Posted on 06/01/2004 6:26:29 PM PDT by Sun
Clarke's Contradiction May Dampen Dem Attack on Bush By Scott Wheeler CNSNews.com Staff Writer June 01, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - As Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, two senators may need to revise one of their harshest critiques about the Bush administration's actions in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, especially now that Bush critic Richard Clarke has contradicted one of his own key statements.
It turns out that President Bush and other top members of his administration had nothing to do with the decision to let members of Osama bin Laden's family depart the United States in the days immediately after 9/11, despite the suggestions of Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Charles Schumer of New York.
Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism official and author of a recent book blasting the Bush administration's handling of intelligence leading up to the terrorist attacks, told The Hill newspaper last week that he gave the go-ahead for two members of the bin Laden family and other Saudi nationals to leave the U.S.
"It didn't get any higher than me," Clarke told The Hill . "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again."
However, back in March, testifying before The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission), Clarke described a different scenario regarding the attempts by the Saudis to depart the U.S. "The request came to me and I refused to approve it," he said at the time.
Clarke's original comments helped Boxer to apply more public pressure on the Bush administration.
"Who in the administration authorized the Saudi Arabian flights ... who did this?" Boxer demanded to know on May 18. "Why would the Saudis want to get out of the country?"
In September of 2003, long before Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Boxer and Schumer had already seized on the issue involving the bin Laden family.
"I have sent a letter to Andrew Card, the (White House) chief of staff, asking how this happened, what was the justification, what safeguards were taken, and what are we doing to make sure it doesn't happen again," Schumer proclaimed.
The New York senator suggested that the Bush administration had acted irresponsibly.
"On September 12th and 13th, hundreds of Saudis were able to take flights home back to Saudi Arabia when no one else could fly. I couldn't fly. Senator Boxer couldn't fly," Schumer said. "But relatives of the royal family, including two members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to get on airplanes and go back to Saudi Arabia.
"Now, Dick Clarke, at our Judiciary (Committee) hearing yesterday, said that the FBI approved each person and said they would be okay to go. How the heck did the FBI know on September 13th that none of these people were either involved in terrorism or, at the very least, be needed for questioning?" Schumer asked.
Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus told CNSNews.com that she wonders how Democrats will change their strategy, in light of Clarke's recent admission.
"What Boxer and Schumer do with this new information will tell a lot about their agenda" Jacobus said. But she added that Clarke, in reversing himself and accepting responsibility for approving the flights to Saudi Arabia, has made it impossible for the Democrats to use the issue against President Bush.
The contradiction also discredits Clarke's views on other matters related to 9/11, Jacobus said. Clarke's criticism of the president and his administration were heavily publicized by many in the media when the book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror , was published. Clarke followed up the release of his book with two days of testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Jacobus said she wonders whether Boxer and Schumer were really more interested in scoring political points than in national security. "Do Schumer and Boxer still want accountability since it no longer serves their political agenda?" she asked.
But in a bitter election year, all issues are subordinate to politics, Jacobus added.
"Is their agenda to get to the bottom of things and find out what really happened? Or is it a political agenda where if the wrong person gives the wrong answer they will simply ignore it and be hypocrites?" Jacobus asked.
Schumer and Boxer were unavailable for comment on Friday.
LOL, don't you mean page Z80
Can he be held in contempt for lying to the commission?
Can he be held in contempt for lying to the commission?
Ooops--didn't mean to post that twice--finger slipped :)
Not so. The reversal will not be reported by any mainstream media and the Rats will simply lie and proceed as if nothing has changed. If they repeat a lie often enough...
This has been their strategy all throughout 2004 thusfar.
Isn't this one of the key things in Michael Moore's tripe?
His movie is already discredited BEFORE coming out, unlike Bowling for Columbine which it took until AFTER to be discredited...
bump
He was sworn in when he lie through his teeth for his democrat bosses ... so yes, he IS in contempt but no more contemtible than CatBoxlicker and Schoegoo.
It turns out that President Bush and other top members of his administration had nothing to do with the decision to let members of Osama bin Laden's family depart the United States in the days immediately after 9/11, despite the suggestions of Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Charles Schumer of New York.
It'll be fun to see the dimocRatic spin on this one although, in all probability, the silence will be deafening from the media.
The libs pay no attention to the facts -- only to the myths of their fevered followers. "We don't need no stinkin' facts" is their mantra, so this will make no difference to them.
Naturally, they have to come up with a good excuse. If any of these Dems ever apologized for wrong information, I'd faint.
Naturally, they have to come up with a good excuse. If any of these Dems ever apologized for wrong information, I'd faint.
"don't you mean page Z80"
That is funny!!
Probably not. He's a liberal, so they get excused.
(But I sure hope he gets held in contempt.)
I hope talk radio makes a big deal out of this. Otherwise, the public may never know about it.
And even when the Dems know the truth; they will continue the same rant because it works for them. The truth of any of this, is irrelevant to the Demrat campaign spin.
That said. . .it is good to have the truth out there; to be used by the Repubs for counter attack; but why did the Repub have to wait for Clarke to clear this up. President Bush knew; what he did not do; so why didn't they just challenge the lie when the cameras and the microphones were in front of them.
WOW! Very interesting. A liar is a criminal for he steals our time of life. Liars are anti-freedom.
If perjury is too much too expect; do you think we can count on some Repub just asking Clarke why he lied. . .and demanding an answer?
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.