THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)
THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.
Giant, I think you are confusing the "committee persona" with the reality of the individual. I've seen administration fodder who are of THE MOST arrogant, and mediocre quality (who I've personally seen in day to day administration activities) get up in front of say, a nomination commitee, and look like pure gold. It's a gift.
Edit: And when you get to that level of the power circle, all of those people have that gift to one extent or another. It can literally make you nausous.
Giant, I think you are confusing the "committee persona" with the reality of the individual. I've seen administration fodder who are of THE MOST arrogant, and mediocre quality (who I've personally seen in day to day administration activities) get up in front of say, a nomination commitee, and look like pure gold. It's a gift.
I've said absolutely nothing about his personality here, so maybe you addressed me by mistake.
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.
I'm not trying to discredit the guy, he had his job for quite some time, so he must have had some aptitude for his work.
But
To get on these threads and effectively separate him from the political culture that created him---and then paint him as a "concerned citizen" with no bias---just trying to show how inane the Bush administration is---just trying to win one for the 9/11 victims---is not realistic.
He oversaw his own period of ineptness, which through a confluence (conflagration?) of groupthink and a lot of technical issuses, somehow allowed al-Qeada to have people in-country prior to Bush coming into office.
This guy isn't unique and neither is the Bush administration.
This guy isn't unique and neither is the Bush administration.
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).
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).
I agree.
(hey giant, hell hath no fury like an NSA scorned)
Oh, and the resignation letter too. mmmm. Probably nothing.
Irrelevant. Boilerplate resignation letter.
Quote:
Oh, and CBS made an "oversight" in not telling folks Viacom stood to profit from his book. I'm sure it's nothing.
Irrelevant. The book and the hearing would've taken place regardless of the TV show.
Quote:
Oh, oh, and I'm sure moving up the publishing date of the book to coincide with the 9/11 hearings was coincidence.
The White House determined when the book would be released. They have a right to thoroughly review the book for national security issues before it can be published. They took an unusually long time to release the book. Therefore, the release of the book was at their determination, not Clarke's.
Quote:
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.
Irrelevant. Republicans weakened Clinton to the point that he could not attack OBL or Afghanistan because of the right wing "Wag the Dog" argument.
I'm not trying to discredit the guy, he had his job for quite some time, so he must have had some aptitude for his work.
But
To get on these threads and effectively separate him from the political culture that created him---and then paint him as a "concerned citizen" with no bias---just trying to show how inane the Bush administration is---just trying to win one for the 9/11 victims---is not realistic.
He oversaw his own period of ineptness, which through a confluence (conflagration?) of groupthink and a lot of technical issuses, somehow allowed al-Qeada to have people in-country prior to Bush coming into office.
This guy isn't unique and neither is the Bush administration.
Wow, it's amazing how the "Blame America's Ex-President's First" crowd suffers from mass amnesia.
Incredible how Republican's dismiss a man who gave 30 years to public service for The God Formerly Known as Reagan, Daddy Bush, Bubba and Bunnypants. They complete dismiss how Clarke helped Clinton foil the millennium plots to destroy the Seattle Space Needle, the LAX bombing, and several planned mass hijackings.
The CIA completely fvcks up Clinton and Clarke's orders to assassinate OBL and his henchmen, Clinton tries bombing them, and the right wing attack machines goes full force into WAG THE DOG, weakens Clinton politically to the point that he no longer can pursue his plan because Newt Gingrich screamed "Afghanistan is a sovereign nation and we have no right to attack targets there."
But, hey. Clarke's an evil money grubbing unethical opportunist trying to get a job on the Kerry campaign.
Dick Clarke's American Grandstand indeed. He just seems to me to be a disgruntled man who wants to tell the world "I told you so" with glorious 20/20 hindsight and sell some books while hes at it. Performance in front of the committee doesn't dismiss his contradictions and obviously biased point of view.
Contradictions? The August 2002 briefing shows Clark singing a different tune. At the very least, what he said must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.
Not biased you say? Bull. Why all the criticism of Bush's whopping 7 months prior to 9/11? Why not point to all the mis-steps during his years under the Clinton administration? How he excuses Clinton's non-response to the Khobar Towers, USS Cole attacks and others. Could it be that he was demoted when Bush took office? Nawwww...
First Bushies are criticized for their policies of preemption and unilateralism and now the bandwagon is criticizing them for not unilaterally preempting the Taliban and al Qaeda immediately after coming into office in January 2001. Seeing the liberals jump on the Clark bandwagon just re-affirms to me that most of left-wingers here are simply anti-Bush with no regards for anything else. Make up your mind please.
I haven't read the full Clark transcripts yet... did they ask him any of THESE QUESTIONS?
When Tony Blair was elected (I was allowed -- and did -- vote for him), I was exstatic. We had a progressive, smart, humane human as leader of the country I live in. And a pro-European too. A friend of similar, progressive leaders all over the planet. I stuck up for him when ever anyone said things like, "He's a dangerous guy because he believes his own lies" or "he's an opportunist from hell you know."
It took me a good 4 years to realise that he wasn't what I thought he was. It took the war on Iraq for me to really open my eyes and see that for whatever reason, he'd aligned himself with the most right-wing leader of the US in its history, and was an appalling deciever of himself and the world, and was engaged in a path of incredible danger.
Some of y'all should try opening your eyes, thinking for yourself. It's liberating.
It's not just TWO heads of counter-terrorism, a cabinet sec., a Pentagon official and a bunch of other people saying it, *THE NEO-CONS PUBLISHED A PAPER ON IT* saying that Iraq should be a priority. They TOLD you THEMSELVES and still you don't believe you were lied to about WMD -- where are they by the way? -- and you actually think invading Iraq diminished the threat from al Qaeda. You actually believe this.
He just seems to me to be a disgruntled man who wants to tell the world "I told you so" with glorious 20/20 hindsight and sell some books while hes at it.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Except that we also have another one of Bush's appointees to [chief counter-terrorism advisor] saying the exact same thing.
You should be aware that the private citizen the author disusses is the author himself! That Sudan issue has been beaten into the ground, and the only two still harping about it are Ijaz (who wanted to profit from it) and Mylroie, neo-con conspiracy theorist extrodinaire.
And Pakistani nukes to al-qaeda are a Clinton issue?!
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02
From the transcript:
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...
THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.
CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.
THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?
CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.
THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.
CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.
THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)
THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.
Edit: And when you get to that level of the power circle, all of those people have that gift to one extent or another. It can literally make you nausous.
Originally posted by dmz
Giant, I think you are confusing the "committee persona" with the reality of the individual. I've seen administration fodder who are of THE MOST arrogant, and mediocre quality (who I've personally seen in day to day administration activities) get up in front of say, a nomination commitee, and look like pure gold. It's a gift.
I've said absolutely nothing about his personality here, so maybe you addressed me by mistake.
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.
But
To get on these threads and effectively separate him from the political culture that created him---and then paint him as a "concerned citizen" with no bias---just trying to show how inane the Bush administration is---just trying to win one for the 9/11 victims---is not realistic.
He oversaw his own period of ineptness, which through a confluence (conflagration?) of groupthink and a lot of technical issuses, somehow allowed al-Qeada to have people in-country prior to Bush coming into office.
This guy isn't unique and neither is the Bush administration.
Originally posted by dmz
and then paint him as a "concerned citizen" with no bias
Originally posted by giant
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.
http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html
Originally posted by dmz
This guy isn't unique and neither is the Bush administration.
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).
Originally posted by Moogs
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).
I agree.
(hey giant, hell hath no fury like an NSA scorned)
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh yes...he explained it. Right. Case closed.
Oh, and the resignation letter too. mmmm. Probably nothing.
Irrelevant. Boilerplate resignation letter.
Oh, and CBS made an "oversight" in not telling folks Viacom stood to profit from his book. I'm sure it's nothing.
Irrelevant. The book and the hearing would've taken place regardless of the TV show.
Oh, oh, and I'm sure moving up the publishing date of the book to coincide with the 9/11 hearings was coincidence.
The White House determined when the book would be released. They have a right to thoroughly review the book for national security issues before it can be published. They took an unusually long time to release the book. Therefore, the release of the book was at their determination, not Clarke's.
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.
Irrelevant. Republicans weakened Clinton to the point that he could not attack OBL or Afghanistan because of the right wing "Wag the Dog" argument.
OK, continue on. Now I'm with you.
Originally posted by dmz
I'm not trying to discredit the guy, he had his job for quite some time, so he must have had some aptitude for his work.
But
To get on these threads and effectively separate him from the political culture that created him---and then paint him as a "concerned citizen" with no bias---just trying to show how inane the Bush administration is---just trying to win one for the 9/11 victims---is not realistic.
He oversaw his own period of ineptness, which through a confluence (conflagration?) of groupthink and a lot of technical issuses, somehow allowed al-Qeada to have people in-country prior to Bush coming into office.
This guy isn't unique and neither is the Bush administration.
Wow, it's amazing how the "Blame America's Ex-President's First" crowd suffers from mass amnesia.
Incredible how Republican's dismiss a man who gave 30 years to public service for The God Formerly Known as Reagan, Daddy Bush, Bubba and Bunnypants. They complete dismiss how Clarke helped Clinton foil the millennium plots to destroy the Seattle Space Needle, the LAX bombing, and several planned mass hijackings.
The CIA completely fvcks up Clinton and Clarke's orders to assassinate OBL and his henchmen, Clinton tries bombing them, and the right wing attack machines goes full force into WAG THE DOG, weakens Clinton politically to the point that he no longer can pursue his plan because Newt Gingrich screamed "Afghanistan is a sovereign nation and we have no right to attack targets there."
But, hey. Clarke's an evil money grubbing unethical opportunist trying to get a job on the Kerry campaign.
Contradictions? The August 2002 briefing shows Clark singing a different tune. At the very least, what he said must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.
Not biased you say? Bull. Why all the criticism of Bush's whopping 7 months prior to 9/11? Why not point to all the mis-steps during his years under the Clinton administration? How he excuses Clinton's non-response to the Khobar Towers, USS Cole attacks and others. Could it be that he was demoted when Bush took office? Nawwww...
First Bushies are criticized for their policies of preemption and unilateralism and now the bandwagon is criticizing them for not unilaterally preempting the Taliban and al Qaeda immediately after coming into office in January 2001. Seeing the liberals jump on the Clark bandwagon just re-affirms to me that most of left-wingers here are simply anti-Bush with no regards for anything else. Make up your mind please.
I haven't read the full Clark transcripts yet... did they ask him any of THESE QUESTIONS?
It took me a good 4 years to realise that he wasn't what I thought he was. It took the war on Iraq for me to really open my eyes and see that for whatever reason, he'd aligned himself with the most right-wing leader of the US in its history, and was an appalling deciever of himself and the world, and was engaged in a path of incredible danger.
Some of y'all should try opening your eyes, thinking for yourself. It's liberating.
It's not just TWO heads of counter-terrorism, a cabinet sec., a Pentagon official and a bunch of other people saying it, *THE NEO-CONS PUBLISHED A PAPER ON IT* saying that Iraq should be a priority. They TOLD you THEMSELVES and still you don't believe you were lied to about WMD -- where are they by the way? -- and you actually think invading Iraq diminished the threat from al Qaeda. You actually believe this.
THEY WEREN'T THERE BEFORE WE INVADED.
Astonishing.
Originally posted by dviant
He just seems to me to be a disgruntled man who wants to tell the world "I told you so" with glorious 20/20 hindsight and sell some books while hes at it.
Originally posted by giant
Except that we also have another one of Bush's appointees to [chief counter-terrorism advisor] saying the exact same thing.
And a cabinet secretary.
[Hart and Rudman]
And a slew of other officials.
Not to mention Foster.
Originally posted by dviant
THESE QUESTIONS?
You should be aware that the private citizen the author disusses is the author himself! That Sudan issue has been beaten into the ground, and the only two still harping about it are Ijaz (who wanted to profit from it) and Mylroie, neo-con conspiracy theorist extrodinaire.
And Pakistani nukes to al-qaeda are a Clinton issue?!
Bizzaro world indeed.
Also I did know who wrote that article above. I thought it was appropriate given subject Clarke and his book. :P
Originally posted by dviant
Got any links for us Giant? I'd be curious to see who agrees with him on what?
Like this stuff hasn't been front page news for the past year?
Originally posted by giant
Like this stuff hasn't been front page news for the past year?
Your statement was pretty broad. I was looking for specifics.