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....
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....
Comments
On 60 minutes, he looked so...sad and angry, it was really interesting to watch, Almost as if he was on the verge of tears.
Not that what he's saying will have any effect on those that are firmly committed to their stance(either way) but maybe it will prompt some people otherwise removed from such events to take note and start thinking.
Originally posted by Scott
What did he say? Any transcripts?
I'm sure there will be transcripts by the end of the day. From what I saw Mr. Clarke's testimony was very powerful. He documented how the Clinton Administration handled terrorism and how the Bush Administration handled it. From what I got the Clinton Administration wanted to do more, but couldn't because of political and intelligence reasons. For instance no one in government knew that AlQ existed until 1995 even after the first WTC bombing. Similarly, operating in a post Cold War environment put a tremendous amount of focus on technological intelligence gathering rather than personal intelligence gathering. The Bush Administration continued what Clinton was doing, but ignored the new warnings. The most powerful item was some of the language that Clarke used in a memo that came out of a September 4th 2001 meeting, that he had been requesting since January 24th 2001, with the principals which warned of a terrible attack resulting in massive amounts of American deaths.
He also had a convincing description on why the both administrations didn't put two and two together with respect to hijacking a plane and using it as a missile.
There was also a very candid response when asked if he had every tool available and the inter-agency cooperation that he was asking for, would it have been preventable. He answered with a flat "no". He took responsible for the things that he could have done to prevent it, but acknowledged that there was not much that the Bush Administration could have done to prevent it even if they had listened to him on January 24th and not September 4th.
Finally he handled the criticism aimed his way very professionally. When asked about a 2002 Time interview in which he praised the way the Bush Administration was handling the WoT, he said what people in his position rarely say, namely that he was serving at the leisure of the President and he knew that it was his duty as a member of the administration to make the news as positive as possible. I can't remember another official from any administration saying under oath that he was spinning the news to suit his boss.
Bravo Mr. Clarke, America needs more civil servants like you.
edit: I wanted to add that I had no idea that there were two submarines, loaded with Cruse missiles, parked off the coast of Pakistan ready to strike terrorists in Afghanistan if they had "actionable intelligence".
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.
Originally posted by Moogs
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.
Testifying before Congress doesn't make a candidate look presidential.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by AirSluf
I've met the man. He is an arrogant blowhard that has an agenda that did not match with either of the past two administration, hence his inexorable shuffle to the outer circle of "advisors", a process that started shortly following Clintons second inaguration. He is also very good at the tactic of putting forth his viewpoint with seemingly genuine confidence. A gift, but it does not make him correct on any particular topic.
Ok, let's see you prove him incorrect then. Honestly interested.
By the way, what "agenda" are you referring to? About the "arrogant blowhard" description, who cares. He wasn't getting paid to kiss babies.
He sure is singing a different tune now than then.
Wow.
Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
Both administrations made mistakes.
There is just to much beaurocracy in government, on both sides, for anything to happen quickly.
They just lingered unattended for a very LONG time under Clinton.
Bush did act upon quicker but the attack occured under his watch so the media is focusing on that.
Al Qaeda infiltrated the country along time before Bush got in.
I wonder what Gore would have done after 9/11.
What is relevent is what Bush could have done, and what Clinton could have done...
Originally posted by Scott
Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
And he discussed that today. But let's ignore all that.
Originally posted by giant
And he discussed that today. But let's ignore all that.
Oh yes...he explained it. Right. Case closed.
Oh, and the resignation letter too. mmmm. Probably nothing.
Oh, and CBS made an "oversight" in not telling folks Viacom stood to profit from his book. I'm sure it's nothing.
Oh, oh, and I'm sure moving up the publishing date of the book to coincide with the 9/11 hearings was coincidence.
Oh, oh....and I almost forgot: The man "fought" terror for eight years under Clinton, was in power when the US was attacked in 1993, 1998 and 2000. But I'm sure Bush is the problem.
OK, continue on. Now I'm with you.
Originally posted by msantti
Both administrations made mistakes.
This is what was compelling to me about his testimony. In the end, he wasn't what I thought was someone making sensational claims, just someone who was frustrated with two Administrations (one Republican, one Democrat) that considered terrorism an important but not vital issue. He's doing the "I told you so" game too, but I think he seems to have some backbone to come out and say it plainly. We failed and 9/11 is evidence of our misplaced priorities.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, oh, and I'm sure moving up the publishing date of the book to coincide with the 9/11 hearings was coincidence.
the publishing date was held back because the white house had to go over the manuscript for national security purposes.
they wanted it out before christmas.
from salon interview:
Why did you write the book now? That's a question they raise. Did it occur to you that this would be an election year and it would be especially controversial because of that, and that these commission hearings were coming up?
I wanted the book to come out much earlier, but the White House has a policy of reviewing the text of all books written by former White House personnel -- to review them for security reasons. And they actually took a very long time to do that. This book could have come out much earlier. It's the White House that decided when it would be published, not me. I turned it in toward the end of last year, and even though there was nothing in it that was not already obviously unclassified, they took a very, very long time.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, oh, and I'm sure moving up the publishing date of the book to coincide with the 9/11 hearings was coincidence.
Stop whining and get your facts straight. The White House has to "clear" books like Clarke's(and they took a while on this one.) so go ahead and blame the WH. Ooooops.
Edit: hadn't noticed Super's post.
Thanks for the quote.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
its so easy to look back and say "oh we could have done _______ to stop the attacks." you know though, if we had taken out somebody before 9/11 or stopped the terrorists from boarding those planes, people would be outraged because we "deprived them of their rights." 9/11 happened, we screwed up, move on.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Had he been consistently correct in his analysis and advice (before, not after the fact) he would have become a very trusted and listened to advisor--even if what he said in those private meetings wasn't what leaders wanted to hear--they do listen to those with proven credibility. But for the last four years, and two administrations he has not been the inner-advisor he started out as. I contend there are two reasons, he was wrong too often and his often grating attitude made him a person many folks just didn't want around as there was no inherent benefit to subjecting themselves to his presence.
Except that we also have another one of Bush's appointees to that position saying the exact same thing.
And a cabinet secretary.
And a slew of other officials.
Not to mention Foster.
they do listen to those with proven credibility.
You should have left this out of your post, since it is clearly false.