Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mr. Mojo · 03-24-2004, 09:47 AM

<a target=new href="http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.html">Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 - LINK</a>

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

ANGLE: OK.

QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?

CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.

QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...

CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.

ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?

CLARKE: In October of '98.

QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?

CLARKE: Right, which was in September.

QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...

CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?

CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?

One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.

ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...

CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.

QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?

CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right.

QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April.

CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March.

QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?

CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done.

QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?

CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

HarmlessRabbit · 03-24-2004, 06:02 PM

And your point is?

tricks · 03-24-2004, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
And your point is?

It's all Clinton's fault

tecoyah · 03-25-2004, 04:38 AM

You might try looking at the entire book he wrote, instead of pulling a single excerpt from a session with reporters. Clark is definately critical of the Clinton administration, but explains in detail the string of ongoing failures of the current administration. He also explains that Clinton and Co. were the ones to begin the focus on anti-terrorism, and Bush and Co. failed to follow up, or "continue" the focus.

onetime2 · 03-25-2004, 04:47 AM

The point is that his statements in the book and in testimony to the 9/11 commission are inconsistent with that briefing as well as the resignation letter he wrote when he left the Bush administration.

Superbelt · 03-25-2004, 05:46 AM

When you are working for someone, you do not trash them. He was part of our government. Part of the administration. It was his job to release information in the way the Admin wanted it released.

His resignation letter was pure fluff and pomp. Just empty rhetoric everyone does when they resign.
Don't read into it that much and use it as an opportunity to discount the charges Clarke raises

Once out, he felt free to tell events and facts as they really were.

Superbelt · 03-25-2004, 06:30 AM

here, this is him addressing it in his own words

Quote:

"I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he explained. "I've done it for several presidents."

Kadath · 03-25-2004, 06:51 AM

I think a certain iron fist is out of balance again...

Lebell · 03-25-2004, 08:21 AM

*hears someone calling*

Ahem.

Anyway, Mr. Mojo, please add some comment and not just post an article.

kutulu · 03-25-2004, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
When you are working for someone, you do not trash them. He was part of our government. Part of the administration. It was his job to release information in the way the Admin wanted it released.

His resignation letter was pure fluff and pomp. Just empty rhetoric everyone does when they resign.
Don't read into it that much and use it as an opportunity to discount the charges Clarke raises

Once out, he felt free to tell events and facts as they really were.

Exactly, the Republicans know this and they know that it's the only way to discredit him. The funny thing is that a lot of the sheep in the county buy into this crap.

Is there any coinscidence that this came from Faux News?

Superbelt · 03-25-2004, 10:54 AM

And it was information given to FOX in confidence. FOX went over his head and asked the Bush admin if they could release his name, not Clarke.

I guess that means that Novak can go over his sources heads and ask Bush if he can release the names of the traitors who outed Valerie Plame now.

Mr. Mojo · 03-25-2004, 11:10 AM

Tricks
It's all Clinton's fault

Its not Clintons fault. Its not Bush's faults. It’s the terrorists fault.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 tecoyah
 but explains in detail the string of ongoing failures of the current administration. He also explains that Clinton and Co. were the ones to begin the focus on anti-terrorism, and Bush and Co. failed to follow up, or "continue" the focus.

True, Clarke mentions both administrations, but the press seems to be only focusing on Bush.
And Clinton had 8 years, starting in 1993 during the first WTC attack. And Clarke says in 2002 that nothing had been done under Clinton since 1998. In the Hearing yesterday, he said there was a plan under plan, so in one case he's lying or very mistaken,

" CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Superbelt
 When you are working for someone, you do not trash them. He was part of our government. Part of the administration. It was his job to release information in the way the Admin wanted it released.

This is a total reversal of what he said in 2002. Is he lying in one case and now he's telling the truth?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 kutulu
 Exactly, the Republicans know this and they know that it's the only way to discredit him. The funny thing is that a lot of the sheep in the county buy into this crap.

Is there any coinscidence that this came from Faux News?

Discrediting Clarke…with his own words?! And for it being Fox News - a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. meaning there were other reporters from other news agencies there. I saw on Britt Hume last night in a interview with Angle about how the FoxNews, asked the white house if they could release this transcript, and Fox was given the ok – and so were the other reporters. The other reporters who havent come forward.

Lebell

*hears someone calling*

Ahem.

Anyway, Mr. Mojo, please add some comment and not just post an article.

Sorry about that, I got busy at work

I find it odd, that Clarke is being praised at this hearing, and yet his past comments are not being used during this testimony now.
This is why i hate all media - they just want to sell the most sensational story they have, while leaving out the whole story - All media does it.

If Clarke is really doing this out of guilt, I hope he's giving all the money he gets from book sales to victims of 9/11.

Back to work...

Tomservo · 03-25-2004, 11:28 AM

Anyone who believes a word anyone from the Bush administration says, including Clark in '02, is crazy. They're pushing their agenda harder than any politicians I've ever seen.

Or, to put it another way: When are you more likely to tell the world how corrupt your boss is... when you're working for him, or after you quit? Don't be ignorant of the situations these guys are put in.

onetime2 · 03-25-2004, 11:31 AM

I get it, whenever he says bad things about Bush he's telling the truth. When he's saying good things it's because he was forced to by the evil Bush administration. Gotcha.

Superbelt · 03-25-2004, 11:37 AM

He wasn't being forced to. He did it because that was his job to be an employee of the president. He also specifically said that he has done the same for other presidents

But I think now, outside of the burden of employment, he can feel more free to tell his story.
And I don't think he is sensationalizing it to improve sales. We all know the man was rabidly pursuing terrorism. That he was preceived as unhinged before 9/11. The guy actually unsettles me a bit in his insistance that we need to curtail some civil liberties to get all the terrorist.

I think his book is really his honest analysis of this nations terrorist response, both present and past. He sees this as his opportunity to open Americas eyes to the threat we face and the need to take steps to combat it.

Kadath · 03-25-2004, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I get it, whenever he says bad things about Bush he's telling the truth. When he's saying good things it's because he was forced to by the evil Bush administration. Gotcha.

Ironically, the reverse is likely your view point. When he praised the Bush administration, that was honesty. His latest testimony is politically motivated lies. Gotcha.

Quote:

*hears someone calling*

Heh. I have a vision of a clenched fist being spotlighted onto a cloud...

onetime2 · 03-25-2004, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Ironically, the reverse is likely your view point. When he praised the Bush administration, that was honesty. His latest testimony is politically motivated lies. Gotcha.

Wrong, I never praised him for honesty.

Kadath · 03-25-2004, 12:05 PM

Okay...you might have been in a bit of a hurry to shoot back; I didn't say you praised him for honesty.

Sparhawk · 03-25-2004, 12:13 PM

Here's Clarke's response to questions about this earlier testimony:

Quote:

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing . . . 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.

"CLARKE: I don't get that. . . . I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.

"THOMPSON: Well, I. . . . "

(And here Thompson has to pause to wait for the victims of the relatives in the gallery to stop applauding.)

"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."

And here's him with Larry King:

Quote:

"KING: But the question, Dick, was why did you praise them two years ago?

"CLARKE: I didn't praise them. What you're referring to is this background briefing that the White House leaked today in violation of the rules on background briefings. When I was a special assistant to the president -- here's what happened.

"Time magazine came out with a very explosive story saying, that, in fact, the White House hasn't done everything it could have done. That in fact, that the administration had been handed a plan by me at the beginning of the administration to deal with al Qaeda and that they ignored it. Remember this, this was the cover story on Time and said they had a plan.

"Well, that hurt the White House a lot for obvious reasons. It was true. And they asked me to try to help them out. I was working for the president of the United States at the time. And I said, well, look, I'm not going to lie. And they said, look, can't you at least emphasize the things that we did do? Emphasize the positive?

"Well, you had no other choice at that moment. There are three things you can do. You can resign rather than do it, you can lie and say the administration did all these things it didn't do. Or, if you want to stay inside the government and try to continue to change it from inside, you can stay on, do what they ask you to do, give a background briefing to the press and emphasize those things which they had done. And I chose to do that.

"But, you know, it seems very ironic to me that what the White House is sort of saying is they don't understand why I, as a special assistant to the president of the United States, didn't criticize the president to the press. If I had criticized the president to the press as a special assistant, I would have been fired within an hour. They know that. This is part of their whole attempt to get Larry King to ask Dick Clarke this kind of question. So we're not talking about the major issue.

"KING: We're going to get to that in a minute. But who told you to do that briefing?

"CLARKE: The national security adviser, the press secretary, the communication's director, they all talked to me, asked me to do the briefing and were telling me to spin it in a very positive way. "

What can I say, it makes total sense for him to say what he did at that point in time.

onetime2 · 03-25-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Okay...you might have been in a bit of a hurry to shoot back; I didn't say you praised him for honesty.

You're right. But you did imply that I believed he was being truthful when talking about Bush. That's not the case.

There is no consistency in his statements. IMO, there is no room for interpretation in his stances. He is lying in one or both of his statements. As such I don't trust anything that he says (and that would be true even if he didn't have a clear financial reason to lie).

Lebell · 03-25-2004, 12:29 PM

In all fairness to Clark, if you are a company man, you parrot the company line so long as you don't feel you are violating your personal ethics.

If you don't, then you are seen as not being a "team player".

I did this for many in my job when talking to clients.

I could justify it because I honestly thought we would get the job done even if I thought the details we were feeding the customer were bullshit.

Anyone who can't see this hasn't been in management.

Kadath · 03-25-2004, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
There is no consistency in his statements. IMO, there is no room for interpretation in his stances. He is lying in one or both of his statements. As such I don't trust anything that he says (and that would be true even if he didn't have a clear financial reason to lie).

See, here's where you leave yourself wide open. If a person says one thing now and a different thing later, they can't be trusted ever? I think you can see where that path leads.

kutulu · 03-25-2004, 01:59 PM

Quote:

What you're referring to is this background briefing that the White House leaked today in violation of the rules on background briefings

This just proves again that this is a nasty administration that will break any rule they need to in order to stay in power.

rsl12 · 03-25-2004, 02:20 PM

Could someone please post passages of the press release and his statements as of recent where there is inconsistency? I poured over that background briefing and, though I see his tone has changed considerably, I can't pick out anything factual out of it that is inconsistent with the newer statements he's made. However, the background briefing is confusing to me, and I'm sure I didn't understand it completely. If someone can clarify in more detail what's being said in both cases, it would be greatly appreciated.

onetime2 · 03-26-2004, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
See, here's where you leave yourself wide open. If a person says one thing now and a different thing later, they can't be trusted ever? I think you can see where that path leads.

Wide open to what? You not agreeing with me? So what. It's my opinion.

I choose to doubt the word of someone who is obviously lying in one or both statements he's making.

For those that say "well, he had no choice, he had to do it", bull. I have been in plenty of professional situations where I was expected to toe the party line even though I knew it was false. I chose to be truthful and express my personal doubts about those things. (In fact I'm currently in just such a situation, where I have pretty firm beliefs and am making no secret of my feelings in direct opposition to my boss's boss. Rather than seeing it as a weakness or a potential opportunity to lose my job, I see it as holding true to my own beliefs and looking out for the company's best interests. Should I lose my job over it, so be it. I will find another and I will excel at that just as I do in every other professinal situation.)

Anytime someone has a clear financial motivation to tell a certain version of a story I wonder about how "truthful" it is and just how much pablum is involved.

Throw in videotaped and written assertions that are in direct contradiction to what they write and prfoess now, and I put little stock in their version of events.

Add to that the possibility of bitterness elicited from being moved to a lesser professional role and that adds more doubt.

Then throw in the possible guilt complex over not being able to better protect the American people, a martyr complex--sacrificing himself to push the agenda he feels is "right", and a savior mentality where his vision is what is going to lead the American people from danger and there's plenty of reason to question his "unbiased" reporting.

But hey, if you're happy with all the inconsistencies and possible conflicts of interest and bias, that's great for you. Feel free to believe what you want, just as I will.

Kadath · 03-26-2004, 05:23 AM

Actually, I was referring to the fact that many politicians, including the President have at one time said one thing and later said something in direct contradiction to the first statement. That's what you leave yourself open to: casting yourself as a hypocrite. Also, while I'm sure your job is important, I doubt it's as significant and as publicized as Counterterrorism Coordinator to the President of the United States. So it might be a little easier for you to stick to your guns, as it were. It's also probably easier to toot your own horn; millions of people aren't looking at your every word and calling you a liar.

onetime2 · 03-26-2004, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Actually, I was referring to the fact that many politicians, including the President have at one time said one thing and later said something in direct contradiction to the first statement. That's what you leave yourself open to: casting yourself as a hypocrite. Also, while I'm sure your job is important, I doubt it's as significant and as publicized as Counterterrorism Coordinator to the President of the United States. So it might be a little easier for you to stick to your guns, as it were. It's also probably easier to toot your own horn; millions of people aren't looking at your every word and calling you a liar.

My stance is far from hypocritical. I have always maintained that we should not accept politicians lying. In this case I am not accepting Clark's lying. It's completely consistent.

As far as my job and it's importance, the very fact that Clark was charged with protecting the country should be MORE reason for him to stick to his guns not less of one.

FWIW, it's never easy to "stick to your guns" in the face of opposition that could end or severely handicap your career. Anyone who thinks it is has probably never tried it.

tecoyah · 03-26-2004, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Wide open to what? You not agreeing with me? So what. It's my opinion.

I choose to doubt the word of someone who is obviously lying in one or both statements he's making.

For those that say "well, he had no choice, he had to do it", bull. I have been in plenty of professional situations where I was expected to toe the party line even though I knew it was false. I chose to be truthful and express my personal doubts about those things. (In fact I'm currently in just such a situation, where I have pretty firm beliefs and am making no secret of my feelings in direct opposition to my boss's boss. Rather than seeing it as a weakness or a potential opportunity to lose my job, I see it as holding true to my own beliefs and looking out for the company's best interests. Should I lose my job over it, so be it. I will find another and I will excel at that just as I do in every other professinal situation.)

Anytime someone has a clear financial motivation to tell a certain version of a story I wonder about how "truthful" it is and just how much pablum is involved.

Throw in videotaped and written assertions that are in direct contradiction to what they write and prfoess now, and I put little stock in their version of events.

Add to that the possibility of bitterness elicited from being moved to a lesser professional role and that adds more doubt.

Then throw in the possible guilt complex over not being able to better protect the American people, a martyr complex--sacrificing himself to push the agenda he feels is "right", and a savior mentality where his vision is what is going to lead the American people from danger and there's plenty of reason to question his "unbiased" reporting.

But hey, if you're happy with all the inconsistencies and possible conflicts of interest and bias, that's great for you. Feel free to believe what you want, just as I will.

Sounds like you are talking about Bush, or rummmy, or condi, or..............

onetime2 · 03-26-2004, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
Sounds like you are talking about Bush, or rummmy, or condi, or..............

They wrote books they're promoting?

Tomservo · 03-26-2004, 10:49 AM

No, they have an ELECTION they're promoting. Which is more important?

onetime2 · 03-26-2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomservo
No, they have an ELECTION they're promoting. Which is more important?

Yawn. I guess smiley faces have no meaning anymore.

The_wall · 03-26-2004, 11:14 AM

Clarke isn't lying in either statement man, he's emphasizing good points of what the administration did in the 02 briefing.

Kadath · 03-26-2004, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
My stance is far from hypocritical. I have always maintained that we should not accept politicians lying. In this case I am not accepting Clark's lying. It's completely consistent.

That's great, if it's true. I don't think it's useful for me to go back through your posts to find a defense of the President lying about something.

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2

As far as my job and it's importance, the very fact that Clark was charged with protecting the country should be MORE reason for him to stick to his guns not less of one.

FWIW, it's never easy to "stick to your guns" in the face of opposition that could end or severely handicap your career. Anyone who thinks it is has probably never tried it.

A, White House advisors have to publicly support policies or agendas they may have privately fought against. That's the way it is.
B, I don't know what FWIW stands for. Actually, I guess it's "for what it's worth." Well, I got fired out of my last job (a government job) for being against the war. So, I think I know.

Superbelt · 03-26-2004, 11:24 AM

Really? What kind of government job did you have where the justification for dismissal could be opposition to the war?

onetime2 · 03-26-2004, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
That's great, if it's true. I don't think it's useful for me to go back through your posts to find a defense of the President lying about something.

A, White House advisors have to publicly support policies or agendas they may have privately fought against. That's the way it is.
B, I don't know what FWIW stands for. Actually, I guess it's "for what it's worth." Well, I got fired out of my last job (a government job) for being against the war. So, I think I know.

Feel free to go through my posts and point to evidence to the contrary. While we most definitely disagree about what is considered a lie, I have never supported a politician lying.

Superbelt · 03-26-2004, 11:40 AM

I'd like to point out another corroborator to go along with Diulio, Paul O'Neil, Rand Beers, and Richard Clarke.

John O'Neill. He was an FBI official in anti-terrorism who quite in frustration months before 9/11 to work security in the WTC because noone in the admin would listen to him, and instead drastically cut anti-terror funding, when he was warning about the exact threat that killed him. He died trying to save peoples lives.

How many officials and specifically anti-terror officials do we need to trot out who lost their gruntles?

onetime2 · 03-26-2004, 11:56 AM

How about a quote from Clarke not from a "background" conversation?

http://www.techlawjournal.com/security/20020214.asp

Quote:

One of the lessons of September 11 ought to be that we minimized vulnerabilities that we knew were there. We all knew there were vulnerabilities in the aviation industry, from the security perspective. But, we didn't do anything about them. Why? Because there industry and the government couldn't agree on who would pay for it, because it was expensive. And so, we all persuaded ourselves that the possibility of the vulnerabilities being used against us was remote. Well, it obviously wasn't. I think that the lesson we have to learn here is, look at the vulnerabilities. Don't look at who is going to do it. And don't try necessarily to pretend that you have the wisdom of figuring out the probability of that someone will use the vulnerabilities.

So, it apparently wasn't just Bush who convinced himself planes wouldn't be used in that manner.

And, "don't try to pretend that you have the wisdom of figuring out the probability that someone will use the vulnerabilities" yet that's exactly what he now claims he expected of Bush before 9/11.

Let's look at a speech he made in 1998,

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-...n.cgi.196.html

Quote:

The Iraqis attempted to assassinate former President
George Bush in Kuwait in 1993, and many other people around the world
feel they also have justifiable reasons for revenge against the United States.
Maybe attacks in the United States would be part of a regional war, just as
in the Solar Sunrise scenario, where the United States may be rushing troops
to another part of the world and someone wants to make that difficult to do.

Imagine that, one of the possible scenarios was that Iraq would stage an attack against the US. And yet now, according to him, it was only Bush who thought there might be ties to Iraq.

03-24-2004, 09:47 AM	#1 (permalink)
Mr. Mojo Addict Location: NYC	Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 <a target=new href="http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.html">Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 - LINK</a> WASHINGTON — <i>The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.</i> RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, <b>there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.</b> Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals. Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. QUESTION: When was that presented to the president? CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process. QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president? CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think. QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy? CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me. JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct? CLARKE: All of that's correct. ANGLE: OK. QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested? CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on. QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ... CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on. ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented? CLARKE: In October of '98. QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing? CLARKE: Right, which was in September. QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ... CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table. QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort? CLARKE: There was no new plan. QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ... CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new. QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ... CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations. QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000? CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably. ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues? CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate? One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions. ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ... CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started. QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had? CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that. (Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.) ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office? CLARKE: You got it. That's right. QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals? CLARKE: That's right. QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD — the actual work on it began in early April. CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel. ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something? CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away. QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget? CLARKE: Yes it did. QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later? CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination. QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct? CLARKE: No, it was March. QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops — now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda? CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done. QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground? CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance. __________________ When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

03-25-2004, 04:38 AM	#4 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	You might try looking at the entire book he wrote, instead of pulling a single excerpt from a session with reporters. Clark is definately critical of the Clinton administration, but explains in detail the string of ongoing failures of the current administration. He also explains that Clinton and Co. were the ones to begin the focus on anti-terrorism, and Bush and Co. failed to follow up, or "continue" the focus. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

03-25-2004, 04:47 AM	#5 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	The point is that his statements in the book and in testimony to the 9/11 commission are inconsistent with that briefing as well as the resignation letter he wrote when he left the Bush administration. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

03-25-2004, 06:51 AM	#8 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	I think a certain iron fist is out of balance again... __________________ it's quiet in here

03-25-2004, 08:21 AM	#9 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	hears someone calling Ahem. Anyway, Mr. Mojo, please add some comment and not just post an article. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-24-2004, 06:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	And your point is?

03-25-2004, 05:46 AM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	When you are working for someone, you do not trash them. He was part of our government. Part of the administration. It was his job to release information in the way the Admin wanted it released. His resignation letter was pure fluff and pomp. Just empty rhetoric everyone does when they resign. Don't read into it that much and use it as an opportunity to discount the charges Clarke raises Once out, he felt free to tell events and facts as they really were.

03-25-2004, 10:54 AM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	And it was information given to FOX in confidence. FOX went over his head and asked the Bush admin if they could release his name, not Clarke. I guess that means that Novak can go over his sources heads and ask Bush if he can release the names of the traitors who outed Valerie Plame now.

03-25-2004, 11:10 AM	#12 (permalink)
Mr. Mojo Addict Location: NYC	<b>Tricks</b> <i>It's all Clinton's fault</i> Its not Clintons fault. Its not Bush's faults. It’s the terrorists fault. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <b> tecoyah</b> <i> but explains in detail the string of ongoing failures of the current administration. He also explains that Clinton and Co. were the ones to begin the focus on anti-terrorism, and Bush and Co. failed to follow up, or "continue" the focus.</i> True, Clarke mentions both administrations, but the press seems to be only focusing on Bush. And Clinton had 8 years, starting in 1993 during the first WTC attack. And Clarke says in 2002 that nothing had been done under Clinton since 1998. In the Hearing yesterday, he said there was a plan under plan, so in one case he's lying or very mistaken, " CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that. ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office? CLARKE: You got it. That's right." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <b> Superbelt</b> <i> When you are working for someone, you do not trash them. He was part of our government. Part of the administration. It was his job to release information in the way the Admin wanted it released.</i> This is a total reversal of what he said in 2002. Is he lying in one case and now he's telling the truth? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <b> kutulu</b> <i> Exactly, the Republicans know this and they know that it's the only way to discredit him. The funny thing is that a lot of the sheep in the county buy into this crap. Is there any coinscidence that this came from Faux News?</I> Discrediting Clarke…with his own words?! And for it being Fox News - <b> a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a <i>handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle.</i></b> meaning there were other reporters from other news agencies there. I saw on Britt Hume last night in a interview with Angle about how the FoxNews, asked the white house if they could release this transcript, and Fox was given the ok – and so were the other reporters. The other reporters who havent come forward. <b>Lebell</b> <i>hears someone calling Ahem. Anyway, Mr. Mojo, please add some comment and not just post an article.</i> Sorry about that, I got busy at work I find it odd, that Clarke is being praised at this hearing, and yet his past comments are not being used during this testimony now. This is why i hate all media - they just want to sell the most sensational story they have, while leaving out the whole story - All media does it. If Clarke is really doing this out of guilt, I hope he's giving all the money he gets from book sales to victims of 9/11. Back to work... __________________ When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

03-25-2004, 11:28 AM	#13 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	Anyone who believes a word anyone from the Bush administration says, including Clark in '02, is crazy. They're pushing their agenda harder than any politicians I've ever seen. Or, to put it another way: When are you more likely to tell the world how corrupt your boss is... when you're working for him, or after you quit? Don't be ignorant of the situations these guys are put in.

03-25-2004, 11:31 AM	#14 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I get it, whenever he says bad things about Bush he's telling the truth. When he's saying good things it's because he was forced to by the evil Bush administration. Gotcha. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

03-25-2004, 11:37 AM	#15 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	He wasn't being forced to. He did it because that was his job to be an employee of the president. He also specifically said that he has done the same for other presidents But I think now, outside of the burden of employment, he can feel more free to tell his story. And I don't think he is sensationalizing it to improve sales. We all know the man was rabidly pursuing terrorism. That he was preceived as unhinged before 9/11. The guy actually unsettles me a bit in his insistance that we need to curtail some civil liberties to get all the terrorist. I think his book is really his honest analysis of this nations terrorist response, both present and past. He sees this as his opportunity to open Americas eyes to the threat we face and the need to take steps to combat it.

03-25-2004, 12:05 PM	#18 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Okay...you might have been in a bit of a hurry to shoot back; I didn't say you praised him for honesty. __________________ it's quiet in here

03-25-2004, 12:29 PM	#21 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	In all fairness to Clark, if you are a company man, you parrot the company line so long as you don't feel you are violating your personal ethics. If you don't, then you are seen as not being a "team player". I did this for many in my job when talking to clients. I could justify it because I honestly thought we would get the job done even if I thought the details we were feeding the customer were bullshit. Anyone who can't see this hasn't been in management. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

03-25-2004, 02:20 PM	#24 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	Could someone please post passages of the press release and his statements as of recent where there is inconsistency? I poured over that background briefing and, though I see his tone has changed considerably, I can't pick out anything factual out of it that is inconsistent with the newer statements he's made. However, the background briefing is confusing to me, and I'm sure I didn't understand it completely. If someone can clarify in more detail what's being said in both cases, it would be greatly appreciated. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

03-26-2004, 05:23 AM	#26 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Actually, I was referring to the fact that many politicians, including the President have at one time said one thing and later said something in direct contradiction to the first statement. That's what you leave yourself open to: casting yourself as a hypocrite. Also, while I'm sure your job is important, I doubt it's as significant and as publicized as Counterterrorism Coordinator to the President of the United States. So it might be a little easier for you to stick to your guns, as it were. It's also probably easier to toot your own horn; millions of people aren't looking at your every word and calling you a liar. __________________ it's quiet in here

03-26-2004, 10:49 AM	#30 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	No, they have an ELECTION they're promoting. Which is more important?

03-26-2004, 11:14 AM	#32 (permalink)
The_wall Psycho Location: Rhode Island biatches!	Clarke isn't lying in either statement man, he's emphasizing good points of what the administration did in the 02 briefing. __________________ "We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

03-26-2004, 11:24 AM	#34 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Really? What kind of government job did you have where the justification for dismissal could be opposition to the war?

03-26-2004, 11:40 AM	#36 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'd like to point out another corroborator to go along with Diulio, Paul O'Neil, Rand Beers, and Richard Clarke. John O'Neill. He was an FBI official in anti-terrorism who quite in frustration months before 9/11 to work security in the WTC because noone in the admin would listen to him, and instead drastically cut anti-terror funding, when he was warning about the exact threat that killed him. He died trying to save peoples lives. How many officials and specifically anti-terror officials do we need to trot out who lost their gruntles?