Consider the dogs "launched" -- Republicans Want Clarke Testimony Declassified

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: conjur
Without a shred of proof??

rolleye.gif



http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Yes, without a shred of proof. That democratic Waxman site does not and cannot prove that Rice would or has lied. Bowfinger made the assumption that Rice would lie.

hmmmm


Statements by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

"We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."
Source: Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (9/8/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.


"For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq?s efforts to get uranium from abroad . . ."
Source: Why We Know Iraq Is Lying, NYT (1/23/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought to acquire uranium despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."


"We do know that there have been shipments going . . . into Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools [sic] that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
Source: Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (9/8/2002).
Explanation: This statement was false. The government?s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose, and intelligence officials at the State Department concurred in this view


"My only point is that, in retrospect, knowing that some of the documents underneath may have been--were, indeed, forgeries, and knowing that apparently there were concerns swirling around about this, had we known that at the time, we would not have put it in. . . . And had there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone."
Source: Face the Nation, CBS (7/13/2003).
Explanation: Ms. Rice was responding to questions regarding how the claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa made it into the President's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address. The statement that the Director of Central Intelligence and the CIA did not object to the claim was false. In October 2002, the CIA expressed doubts about the claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to Ms. Rice. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice?s deputy in October 2002.

She's not setting a good precedent for herself, is she?

Also:

Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she misspoke; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies and Clarke had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.

Also, this sounds very similar to what Clinton's administration was trying to do. Didn't Rice say there was no plan passed from the Clinton administration?
In an op-ed published Monday in The Washington Post, Rice wrote that "through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda" that included "sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime" including the use of ground forces. But Armitage, testifying this week as the White House representative, said the military part was not in the plan before Sept. 11. "I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11," he said. McCormack said Rice's statement is accurate because the team discussed including orders for such military plans to be drawn up.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: etech
Bowfinger made the assumption that Rice would lie.
Yep, I sure did. It is an informed assumption based on her comments and the mounting evidence she was lying, but it is an assumption. Bush supporters assume Clarke lied. What's your point?

That's sort of the purpose of these forums, is it not? We all exchange our views and assumptions and beliefs, hopefully with occasional evidence to support them. My experience tells me Rice is lying through her teeth. Yours leads you to a different conclusion.

Maybe we'll find out the truth if we can ever get Rice under oath. Until then, I will continue to find it suspicious that she so adamantly refuses to testify under oath, and yes, I will make assumptions on that basis.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: etech
I see it for what it is.

I see nothing in what Clarke has said that would make me not vote for Pres. Bush.

Add in the fact that Clarke's story has changed and there is even more reason not to pay attention to him.

Point out how Clarke's story has changed.

You can't. Do you know why?

Because it hasn't.

Still waiting....
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: etech
I see it for what it is.

I see nothing in what Clarke has said that would make me not vote for Pres. Bush.

Add in the fact that Clarke's story has changed and there is even more reason not to pay attention to him.

Point out how Clarke's story has changed.

You can't. Do you know why?

Because it hasn't.

Still waiting....

but...but....but Rick Santorum and the White House said his story has changed. It must be true!!
rolleye.gif
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Dunno if this has been posted yet...

Kerry tells the Rs to either put up or shut up

"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath."

Think they will? ;)


Still waiting....
As we all are. ;)
LOL, I was expecting Kerry bto shoot himself in the foot over this. Obviously someone is thinking clearly over at his Campaign
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Yeah...instead Kerry has played it smart and focused on his plan to cut corporate taxes and induce companies to bring jobs back to the States.

Wise to let Bush and Co. commit political suicide on their own.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
The Republicans are blustering and posturing like school children on the playground. I wouldn't presume to guess just how STUPID they can be, but for their sake I'm assuming they aren't dumb enough to declassify all that information that "contradicts" Clarke, nor will they prosecute him.

Frist was trying to out-grandstand Clarke, who is an obvious grandstander.

Anyway, how is all of this going to make us safer now? Pointing fingers won't do it. I'd suggest the Commission and Congress get on the ball instead of playing ball.

-Robert
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
WP

"GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

GORTON: It just would have allowed our response, after 9/11, to be perhaps a little bit faster?

CLARKE: Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.

GORTON: Yes, but there was no recommendation, on your part or anyone else's part, that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

CLARKE: That's right.

"

In short, if all of Clarke's recomendations had been carried out, 9/11 would have still happened.


findarticles

"....On a broader scale, Congress chartered the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, led by former senators Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., to identify trends to help predict what the world will be like in 25 years, to assess how the United States would fare amid the technological and geopolitical changes and then to propose fundamental ways in which U.S. national-security approaches should be reformed. In February, after a two-year investigation, the Hart-Rudman commission issued its report, bluntly stating: "This commission has concluded that, without significant reforms, American power and influence cannot be sustained." Hart and Rudman wrote that, "despite the end of the Cold War threat, America faces distinctly new dangers, particularly to the homeland."

The first of the commission's five recommendations for national-security organizational change was "ensuring the security of the American homeland." Its reasoning is blunt: "A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter-century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures."

The Bush administration has seized the problem aggressively with a range of initiatives to have a working system in place to defend the country against attacks on its critical infrastructure. Pentagon insiders tell Insight that Rumsfeld's reviews pay close attention to homeland defense and that the administration is weighing creation of a special office for that purpose.

....

Meanwhile, say insiders, the administration is trying to clean up the mess left by its predecessor. Clarke, Clinton's former national infrastructure chief whom Bush kept on, now admits that his first attempt under the Clinton administration to deal with infrastructure defense was a set of policies "written by bureaucrats" and that they were wholly inadequate. He attacked a 1999 Clinton/Gore infrastructure-protection plan as one that "could not be translated into business terms that corporate boards and senior management could understand."
"

Note the date of that article.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: etech
findarticles

"....On a broader scale, Congress chartered the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, led by former senators Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., to identify trends to help predict what the world will be like in 25 years, to assess how the United States would fare amid the technological and geopolitical changes and then to propose fundamental ways in which U.S. national-security approaches should be reformed. In February, after a two-year investigation, the Hart-Rudman commission issued its report, bluntly stating: "This commission has concluded that, without significant reforms, American power and influence cannot be sustained." Hart and Rudman wrote that, "despite the end of the Cold War threat, America faces distinctly new dangers, particularly to the homeland."

The first of the commission's five recommendations for national-security organizational change was "ensuring the security of the American homeland." Its reasoning is blunt: "A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter-century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures."

The Bush administration has seized the problem aggressively with a range of initiatives to have a working system in place to defend the country against attacks on its critical infrastructure. Pentagon insiders tell Insight that Rumsfeld's reviews pay close attention to homeland defense and that the administration is weighing creation of a special office for that purpose.

....

Meanwhile, say insiders, the administration is trying to clean up the mess left by its predecessor. Clarke, Clinton's former national infrastructure chief whom Bush kept on, now admits that his first attempt under the Clinton administration to deal with infrastructure defense was a set of policies "written by bureaucrats" and that they were wholly inadequate. He attacked a 1999 Clinton/Gore infrastructure-protection plan as one that "could not be translated into business terms that corporate boards and senior management could understand."

"

Note the date of that article.

Wow - so much for the "theory" that Bush wasn't "doing anything" huh? Ofcourse now that allows the nutjobs to say it was a big planned conspiracy.:p

Good find etech.
:beer::D:beer:

CkG
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
BTW, you forgot the next paragraph, etech:

He warns, however, that the private sector's failure to regulate itself only invites more government regulation. Due to the nature of the threat to the U.S. homeland, Clarke argues that the government must insist on cooperation from the private sector -- especially because more than 90 percent of the country's critical infrastructure is in private hands. "There is a unique challenge here" Clarke recently told a CSIS gathering. "For the first time in our history, the armed forces cannot defend us from the foreign threat. They cannot surround the power grid. Therefore, we are asking the private sector to defend not only itself, but the country as well."



And...I'm still waiting on your proof that Clarke contradicted himself.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
In the lead story on NPR News, this evening, Clarke, himself, said he would be glad to have the documents declassified, including the memo he gave Rice in the first week of the Bush administration.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Conjur, there's an old saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".

I've shown example of where the Bush administration was placing a high priority on terrorism.

That contradicts Clarkes testimony.

Clarke said that it was Clinton's number one priority but the problem still existed didn't it.

So get over it Conjur, no matter what I show you'll come up with some lame excuse as to why it doesn't. Let's continue this after his 2002 testimony is declassified and see what that says.

BTW, what was your point in "the next paragraph"?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
The point of the "next paragraph" is it tempers the accusation you were leveling at Clarke.

As for Clarke and his contradictions, again, you have proved nothing and you certainly have not proven he perjured himself. Apparently, you know jacksh!t about what perjury is.

Because you claim the Bush administration placed a high priority on terrorism (rather questionable given the huge amount of evidence to the contrary), does not mean that Clarke contradicted himself.

I'll spell it out for you again, etech. In order to prove someone contradicted themself, you post two contradictory quotes by the same person

Person A: "Quote 1"
Person A: "Quote 2"

Where "Quote 2" would be the contradictory statement.

Go ahead. Prove Clarke contradicted himself.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
What many seem to miss is that documents are supposed to be classified for "national security".

Why the hell is anyone even considering declassifying documents? If they aren't protecting that security they never should have been classified, and if they are, then why the hell are we letting them out to protect ANY president?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
What many seem to miss is that documents are supposed to be classified for "national security".

Why the hell is anyone even considering declassifying documents? If they aren't protecting that security they never should have been classified, and if they are, then why the hell are we letting them out to protect ANY president?
That's not the point. The Bush whackers are trying to discredit Clarke by claiming there is material in those documents that contradicts his public statements.

It smells like a nasty piece of grandstanding they think no civilians will be able to disprove because they have a pretty good idea the documents can't be made public. Assuming Clarke is telling the truth, his answer was simply to call their bluff and agree they should be declassified. Pretty classy, IMHO. :)
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Clarke then . .

Excerpts from the August 2002 press briefing by Richard A. Clarke:

RICHARD CLARKE: There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration ... In January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. [They] decided to ... vigorously pursue the existing policy [and] ... initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years.
In their first meeting [the principles] changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding [for covert action against al Qaeda] five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. [They] then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda ... to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda.
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 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 [the] terrorism issue ... There was never a plan [in the Clinton administration].
QUESTION: 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. One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. In the spring [of 2001], the Bush administration ... began to change Pakistani policy. We began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis ... [to] join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration ... prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way?
CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points ... to think about it. And they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
QUESTION: You're saying ... 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 ...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 [policy] from one of rollback to one of elimination.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
If the sole reason to declassify Clarke's previous testimony is the political rescue of the Bush administration then the principle of "classified" information is pure BS. IMHO, Clarke's testimonial consistency will be akin to Bush/Gore results from 2000.

Dems: Gore had more votes nationwide.
GOP: Bush had more states, more counties, and more surface area (listed together since it's all the same anyway).
Dems: More people intended to vote for Gore in FL.
GOP: More votes for Bush were actually counted in FL (the first time).
Dems: Bush was not responsible for the improvement in TX schools.
GOP: Bush was governor during much of the improvement in TX schools.
Dems: Bush presided over the development of a future huge whole in the TX budget.
GOP: Bush presided over the largest surplus in TX history and extensive tax cuts.
Dems: Gore is experienced in foreign affairs.
GOP: Bush will find people experienced in foreign affairs.

All of the above are true but the POV makes a dramatic difference in the tone and content of the information conveyed.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Jesus Christ, etech. I'm NOT going to do your work for you.

Again.

Post the contradictions. Put them up side-by-side and show us the contradictions.

That 2002 interview has already been shown to match his other statements.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ, etech. I'm NOT going to do your work for you.

Again.

Post the contradictions. Put them up side-by-side and show us the contradictions.

That 2002 interview has already been shown to match his other statements.

Conjur, I don't play by your rules. Understand?

If you want to belive that Clarke suddenly found religion and decided to blast the Bush administration out of the goodness of his heart while writing a book about than you just go right on ahead believing that. I've read his 2002 press briefing and it does not seem to match at all the tone or information that he is now putting out. But you go ahead and ignore those differences. As I said before and you keep ignoring, let's wait and see if his testimony is released and than see what, if any, differences there are.

His press release is out there, do you think that sounds like the same man that is now blasting away?


 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
My rules?

They aren't *my* rules.

It's SOP.

I and many others have read the transcripts of his various interviews and there is NO contradiction. The story differs only in the Aug. 2002 but only because he generalized there in order to paint a pretty picture of the Bush Admin for a press backgrounder that was supposed to have been anonymous.

So, either you put up or shut the fvck up.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: etech
You and the others like you don't want to see the contradictions.

That is all.

"The moment a person forms a theory his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory." - Thomas Jefferson

;) goes both ways though.

CkG