Posted on 11/18/2004 3:24:37 PM PST by WuzaDem
Clarke Testimony Released
It has been widely speculated that the Democrats will use Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing as an opportunity to resurrect the charge that she failed to heed warnings about al Qaeda given by Richard Clarke during the transition from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. The point would not be to refuse to confirm her, but to once again use Clarke's charges to discredit both Rice in particular and the Bush administration in general.
We have repeatedly critiqued Clarke's baseless attacks on the Bush administration, which grew out of his disagreement with the administration's policy on Iraq. Examples are "Richard Clarke, Fraud," "Clarke Takes a Beating," and "Richard Clarke, Liar." If you search our site, you will find many other posts discussing Clarke's fictitious charges.
Clarke's credibility has long been in tatters, but the final blow was delivered today when the joint Select Committee on Intelligence released the transcript of his testimony before that committee on June 11, 2002. Clarke's testimony, with only slight redactions for security reasons, can be accessed here.
Clarke's testimony is completely devoid of any suggestion that he delivered any warning of any kind to Rice or any other member of the Bush administration, let alone any claim that any such warning was disregarded. In fact, what is notable about Clarke's appearance before the Joint Committee is that the Bush administration was scarcely mentioned at all. There was a great deal of discussion about what happened during the Clinton administration, and Clarke generally tried to defend Clinton against criticism. But, with a single exception noted below, not even the most partisan Democrats on the committee, like Nancy Pelosi, tried to suggest that there was anything the Bush administration could or should have done differently during the brief time it was in office prior to September 11, 2001.
This is the complete text of Clarke's prepared testimony as it related to the Bush administration:
In 2001, the Bush administration, immediately upon coming into office, asked for a review of how we were organized on terrorism, on homeland security and on cybersecurity. The recommendation of that review was that we split the counterterrorism portfolio from the cyberterrorism portfolio. That was agreed by May in the principals committee, and I asked to be assigned to the cybersecurity portfolio, since I had done counterterrorism for 10 years. The Bush administration also tasked in February [Ed.: That is, within a matter of days after taking office] a policy review of al-Qa'ida. That was developed over the course of the spring and resulted in a draft Presidential directive to eliminate al-Qa'ida. That Presidential directive was finalized by the principals in the first week in September.
That is precisely consistent with Rice's testimony before the Intelligence Committee.
Later on in Clarke's testimony, a Congressman asked whether the Bush administration failed to support the approval of two memoranda of notification relating to al Qa'ida (i.e., approvals for covert action). Clarke denied that this had happened:
You said they were not supported by the NSC [Ed.: The National Security Council, headed by Condoleezza Rice] during this administration in 2001. I think that is inaccurate. What occurred during the spring was that the Deputies Committee of the NSC, Deputy CIA Director, Deputy Secretary of State, et cetera, met four or five times to go over our policy with regard to these MoNs and with regard to [deleted] Afghanistan, al Qa'ida in general. Those MoNs were designed to be signed after the President signed the national security directive. Now, that national security directive on the eliminatin of al Qa'ida was approved by the principals on September 4th and was on its way to the President's desk on 9/11. So they were never disapproved. In fact, they were being incorporated in an overall package. Specifically relating to the "warnings" that came out in the spring and summer of 2001 based on intelligence gathered overseas, Clarke testified that the Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI did what they could. They passed alerts on to 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies and to all airports and airlines. But the information was so general that nothing more effective could be done. See pages 62-63 of the transcript.
Clarke's testimony is actually very interesting. The thrust of the questioning is about why the Clinton administration didn't do a more effective job of pursuing al Qaeda during the 1990s. Clarke says that they tried, but were frustrated by institutional weaknesses whose roots went back at least to the 1970s. The biggest problem, Clarke argues, is that over a period of decades, the CIA was beaten up on so repeatedly by Congress over failed operations that the agency became too risk averse ever to act.
What happened here is pretty obvious. Clarke testified reasonably candidly in June 2002. But a year later, he had broken with the Bush administration over Iraq, and, like a number of other former bureaucrats, he turned his policy disagreement with the President into a personal attack. Clarke fabricated the story that he had delivered some kind of warning or secret plan to Condoleezza Rice, which she ostensibly failed to understand or to act upon. Clarke's tale briefly caused problems for the administration, until Clarke's credibility collapsed when it was revealed that his story was contradicted by his own contemporaneous words, as, for example, in a briefing that he gave to reporters in August 2002.
The Intelligence Committee's release of the complete transcript of Clarke's June 2002 appearance should be the last nail in the coffin of the Democrats' plan to use him to discredit Rice.
I find Powerlineblog worthy of visiting every morning.
Agree, not many will hear of it. But as the article says, it discourages the Rats attacking her by using his revisionist statements in the confirmation hearings.
BTW, good grab!
The recommendation of that review was that we split the counterterrorism portfolio from the cyberterrorism portfolio. That was agreed by May in the principals committee, and I asked to be assigned to the cybersecurity portfolio, since I had done counterterrorism for 10 years.
Now, that national security directive on the eliminatin of al Qa'ida was approved by the principals on September 4th and was on its way to the President's desk on 9/11.
The biggest problem, Clarke argues, is that over a period of decades, the CIA was beaten up on so repeatedly by Congress over failed operations that the agency became too risk averse ever to act.
But I am sure that these points will never see the light of day after 01/20/05.
"But I am sure that these points will never see the light of day after 01/20/05."
Well, let's be sure to tune in to Peter Jennings tonight just in case he leads with this.
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, I tried to keep a straight face, couldn't pull it off.
You are nuts...yes, it's true
For your big book deal...you had to come through
It's evident...for RATS you whore
You tried to hide the fact that you're in bed with Gore
Shameless, shameless, lying scum
You are a real Dick Clarke
A cockroach who's come out of the dark
You are a Dick Clarke...you are a Dick Clarke
There's no promotion so being a Dick Clarke...was your plan
Incompetence...no advance
You threw a tantrum...and pulled down your pants
You held your breath...what more to do
Though we're at war, your country you would gladly screw
Shameless, shameless, lying scum
You are a real Dick Clarke
A cockroach who's come out of the dark
You are a Dick Clarke...you are a Dick Clarke
There's no promotion so being a Dick Clarke...was your plan
(Salutes CedarDave)
Thank you sir, for the comment and for your service!
You may enjoy this joke. I saw it recently, don't remember where so forgive me for not crediting the originator:
Last week a Marine stationed at the perimeter of the White House was approached by an elderly man. "I'd like to see President Kerry" he said.
"Sir, Senator Kerry is not President. He lost the election" the Marine told him.
The old man thanked him and walked off.
The very next day the man walked to the Marine again. "I'd like to see President Kerry" he said.
Once again the Marine politely informed him "Sir, Senator Kerry did not win the election, he is not the President" and again the old man thanked him and walked away.
The following day the Marine saw the man approaching him and couldn't believe it when the man once again said "I'd like to see President Kerry."
With patience and respect he said "Sir, I believe I have already told you twice that Senator Kerry did not win the election and he is not the President."
"I know" said the old man "I just like hearing you say it.
The Marine snapped to attention and smiled "See you tomorrow Sir!"
bttt
The House and Senate know about this, and they know that this testimony is now public. The result is that the Democrats are handcuffed on how they can lie, or at least, lie brazenly when they begin their inquisition of Bush's new cabinet nominees.
I think "brazenly" is the key word there.
The liberal Dems are such total pigs. Nail them with the facts...let them try to slime the quality of people that they are INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING....
Maybe they will want Madeline All, er, Halfbright back???
Hi, do you still live close enough to drive should President and Mrs. Bush stop here on the way to DC once again?
Rose
While explaining the dangers of Al Queda she had a blank look on her face.
Have you ever noticed that when they have something good to say about our military, president etc. they always talk in a low key.
When they have something so called good to say about Clinton/Kerry they always escalate the tone of their voice?
It's related, but I am referring the amount of coffee spilled in the Kremlin.
We knew this guy was a freaking liar, and now the proof is out there. But, as stated, will people see it? Will 60 minutes do a expose on it? HAH!
Yep, still in Hobbs. However, I'm working on going to DC this time to see him.
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.