Richard Clarke

[Sorry for the title Typo, if a mod could add the "e" at the end of Clarke, please...][Taken care of]Fellows

Well I can say the man has my respect for now. I've been watching some of the other people testify in front of the comission the past two days, but I was particularly interested in seeing how convincing Clarke was in front of this panel. I was particularly unimpressed by George Tenet who frequently threw his hands up (or down) and said "gee I don't know" or "ask someone else" during this morning's session. I was hoping to get something different from Clark and I did. In spades.

I've never been one to run right out and buy the latest book on political scandal or the like, and I haven't yet read Clarke's book...

...I must say though, he took all of the badgering from James Thomson (who regretably came off as someone who was interested less in obtaining valuable information from Clarke, and more interested in making him look bad with snide comments... being from Illinois I was a embarrased) with great poise. He took their baited questions, answered them logically and stared them right in the eye all the while.

The dead silence after he mentioned the President as having undermined the WOT by handling the Iraq situation as he did, was just... compelling. Clarke didn't even blink (seemed like about 20 seconds), as the panel took in what he said and tried to regain their train of thought. This guy was 100% sincere in his criticisms and disappointment in the whole situation leading to 9/11; he is clearly not some political tool of John Kerry or anyone else. To say otherwise is to reveal nothing but the political motive of discrediting him.

Overall I was impressed with his answers and am more -- and not less --compelled to read his book (which I figured I would be less compelled). The man obviously has no gripe against GOP leadership of this country in general, given his track record under Republican administrations and his own stated affiliaition (Republican). What's more he obviously was not covering his own ass in any respect I could discern... unlike Tenet, who seemed to dodge every other question.

Thus it seems to me whatever criticisms are in his book ought to at least be read and considered in the grand scheme of things this year.

How many experts and respected officials do we need to resign from the Bush Administration before the GOP die-hards in this country start to recognize there is a real problem and its not just politics as usual? Aside from the four high ranking officials from the EPA who have left (all calling Bush's policies deeply flawed and geared toward corporate interests), and the former Secretary of the Treasury... we now have Richard Clarke.

Are we to believe that all of these people simply did their jobs badly in the end, and so quit and criticized Bush as a matter of sour grapes and nothing more?? To anyone who wants to believe that, I recommend therapy. Denial and all that....

There is a transcript of the entire day's proceeding (80-some pages worth I think) at the NYT.com site... I read most of yesterday's transcript last night, as a precursor to today's events.

I really wish (as all members of the panel did) that Condy Rice had the decency to get in front of these people and answer their questions. All this BS from the administration about there being some sort of conflict of interest is a load. There are several past precedents with Watergate and other issues, that were examined by commissions like this, where someone in her position / relationship to the President testified.

Her not being there is clearly an attempt to dodge a bullet by the administration. If Powell and Tenet and all the other "principles" can get up there, why not Rice? There's not a single good reason I've heard... she needs to do this before the commission makes its conclusions, and publicly.

Back to Clarke: another reason I was impressed... was the ONLY person testifying (either day), or among anyone in the ROOM for that matter, who had the balls to apologize to the families of the victims. He came right out and said "your government failed you... and I failed you" and that his intention with this was partly to get all the facts out, so that perhaps at some point the victims' families would forgive him. He was anything but dodgy.

Look I don't dispute for one second that the guy has a talent for talking about difficult issues in a calm and collected manner, but face it: no one gets into the White House and subsequently in front of microphones unless they can do that.

I believe the exchange between Mr. Thompson and Mr. Clarke highlighted this perfectly. The whole Fox thing is a joke, and Fox itself is somewhat responsible for taking a press release / briefing and spinning it into "hard hitting news". Don't overlook their irresponsibility in all this. We all know Fox has not the world's greatest reputation when it comes to accurate reporting. One of the panel members pointed this out specifically, and got some public applause for it if I recall.

Anyway, the point is, to discredit everything this man has testified to (press releases and briefings are spin-vehicles, not sworn testimony... of which this man has given many hours willingly), just because he did his job with the press two years ago is hypocritical in the extreme.

That is, unless we're also willing to discredit for the same reasons Condy Rice, Rumsfeld (who has contradicted himself numerous times), Cheney, Tenet, and a large host of other people who, when queried by the press about some harsh issue, INVARIABLY put the best spin on it they can and try mightily to not bring up certain phrases or words that might trigger more tough questions.

It's what these people do. All of them to one degree or another. Is that sad and bad news for us as the people being "served" by government? Abosolutely it is sad. But now you're talking about a systemic problem, not something brought on by one individual in one administration. Big change is needed but that's a topic for another thread.

Hmm. Maybe I did a poor job of originally stating my case. I don't even contend that this guy didn't make mistakes / have his own flaws. I guess what I see is, a political "lifer" who has come out of the woodwork and basically laid bare a number of disturbing patterns and problems with our system of dealing with terrorists. It isn't too common, now matter how arrogant the guy may or may not be (as was earlier stated for example).

On a personal level he probably is arrogant. And relative to all of us personally, MOST of these people we're seeing conduct this commission would be considered arrogant I think. Most of these people aren't going to stoop to the level of asking us to join their "insider threesome" on the first tee, if you take my meaning (even if they're not talking business).