Richard Clarke clears the air over the FOX News transcript. NO contradictions...only forced spin by the Bush Admin

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?

CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading.

The press briefing you're referring to comes in the following context: Time magazine had published a cover story article highlighting what your staff briefing talks about. They had learned that, as your staff briefing notes, that there was a strategy or a plan and a series of additional options that were presented to the national security adviser and the new Bush team when they came into office.

Time magazine ran a somewhat sensational story that implied that the Bush administration hadn't worked on that plan. And this, of course, coming after 9/11 caused the Bush White House a great deal of concern.

So I was asked by several people in senior levels of the Bush White House to do a press backgrounder to try to explain that set of facts in a way that minimized criticism of the administration. And so I did.

Now, we can get into semantic games of whether it was a strategy, or whether it was a plan, or whether it was a series of options to be decided upon. I think the facts are as they were outlined in your staff briefing.

THOMPSON: Well, let's take a look, then, at your press briefing, because I don't want to engage in semantic games. You said, the Bush administration decided, then, you know, mid-January -- that's mid- January, 2001 -- to do 2 things: one, vigorously pursue the existing the policy -- that would be the Clinton policy -- including all of the lethal covert action findings which we've now made public to some extent. Is that so? Did they decide in January of 2001 to vigorously pursue the existing Clinton policy?

CLARKE: They decided that the existing covert action findings would remain in effect.

THOMPSON: OK. 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. Now, that seems to indicate to me that proposals had been sitting on the table in the Clinton administration for a couple of years, but that the Bush administration was going to get them done. Is that a correct assumption?

CLARKE: Well, that was my hope at the time. It turned out not to be the case.

THOMPSON: Well, then why in August of 2002, over a year later, did you say that it was the case?

CLARKE: I was asked to make that case to the press. I was a special assistant to the president, and I made the case I was asked to make.
:
:
:
KEAN: Governor, one more question.

THOMPSON: When was that presented to the president? And you answered: the president was briefed throughout this process.

CLARKE: Yes. The president apparently asked, on one occasion that I'm aware of, for a strategy. And when he asked that, he apparently didn't know there was a strategy in the works. I, therefore, was told about this by the national security adviser.

I came back to her and said, well, there is a strategy; after all, it's basically what I showed you in January. It stuck in the deputies committee. She said she would tell the president that, and she said she would try to break it out of the deputies committee.

THOMPSON: So you believed that your conference with the press in August of 2002 is consistent with what you've said in your book and what you've said in press interviews the last five days about your book?

CLARKE: I do. I think the think that's obviously bothering you is the tenor and the tone. And I've tried to explain to you, sir, that when you're on the staff of the president of the United States, you try to make his policies look as good as possible.

===============================================================

Then, Senator Kerrey blasts FOX News:

KERREY: Well, Mr. Clarke, let me say at the beginning that everything that you've said today and done has not damaged my view of your integrity. It's very much intact as far as I'm concerned. And I hope that your pledge earlier not to be a part of the Kerry administration did not preclude you from coming to New York sometime and teaching at the new schools.

(LAUGHTER)

And let me also say this document of Fox News earlier, this transcript that they had, this is a background briefing. And all of us that have provided background briefings for the press before should beware. I mean, Fox should say occasionally fair and balanced after putting something like this out.

(LAUGHTER)

Because they violated a serious trust.

(APPLAUSE)

All of us that come into this kind of an environment and provide background briefings for the press I think will always have this as a reminder that sometimes it isn't going to happen, that it's background.

Sometimes, if it suits their interest, they're going to go back, pull the tape, convert it into transcript and send it out in the public arena and try to embarrass us or discredit us.

So I object to what they've done, and I think it's an unfortunate thing they did.

=======================================================

Then:

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?

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.

THOMPSON: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.

CLARKE: 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.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
"And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. "

I suggest you rethink your assesment and your thread title conjur.

CkG
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Read the transcripts, CkG and you'lll see what I mean.

He had to put a positive spin on things. That doesn't mean he lied.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Read the transcripts, CkG and you'lll see what I mean.

He had to put a positive spin on things. That doesn't mean he lied.

"only forced spin by the Bush Admin" = Not True - by clarke's own testimony.

CkG
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Clarke said "I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics." not Thompson.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Clarke said "I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics." not Thompson.

It was cut-n-pasted from the Washington Post copy of the transcripts.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Read the transcripts, CkG and you'lll see what I mean.

He had to put a positive spin on things. That doesn't mean he lied.

"only forced spin by the Bush Admin" = Not True - by clarke's own testimony.

CkG

Yes...it's true, CkG. You just have your lips so far up Bush's arse you cannot see the truth.

The Bush Administration SENT Clarke to FOX News and TOLD him what to say and is now using that against him!

H Y P O C R I T S ! ! !
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Clarke said "I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics." not Thompson.

It was cut-n-pasted from the Washington Post copy of the transcripts.

I was listening to it on the NPR. I am looking for another source for the transcript.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I've read and dissected that "press backgrounder" Fox News transcript (in the other thread about this) and found that:

(A) Clarke doesn't "praise" the Bush administration or their efforts. In fact, he just barely comes up with a reasonable timeline and explanations in between the "ums"

(B) Clarke, in his efforts to explain what the Bush Admin was up to for the first 8-9 months, contradicts himself. His first point claims that there was no plan/strategy passed between Clinton's Admin and Bush's Admin. His next 6 or so points elaborate on how the Bush Admin adopted and were actively working the strategy in place from the previous admin.

(C) In the Fox News transcript, Clarke describes how the current admin adopted the existing strategy from Clinton while taking 8 or 9 months to develop a more "comprehensive" strategy to elminate al Qaeda/terror. At some point, the admin bumps up funding for covert action. Otherwise, for the 8 to 9 months leading up to 9/11, the Bush admin wasn't doing anything more than Clinton was doing.

"C" above, comports nicely with the fact that Clarke wanted a more agressive approach to defeating al Qaeda and global terror. He wanted this under Clinton and wasn't able to get it to happen. He also wanted a more agressive stance in the Bush Admin and wasn't able to get the admin in gear nearly fast enough. If 9/11 hadn't happened when it did, and perhaps happened later, the Bush Admin "comprehensive strategy" may have kicked things up a notch, however it took nearly 9 months to develop. It was too little too late.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Read the transcripts, CkG and you'lll see what I mean.

He had to put a positive spin on things. That doesn't mean he lied.

"only forced spin by the Bush Admin" = Not True - by clarke's own testimony.

CkG

Yes...it's true, CkG. You just have your lips so far up Bush's arse you cannot see the truth.

The Bush Administration SENT Clarke to FOX News and TOLD him what to say and is now using that against him!

H Y P O C R I T S ! ! !


What part of "And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them." do you not understand?

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
So Bush supporters are complaining about spin? :confused:

That's like the cat complaining about an open hunting season on mice.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Read the transcripts, CkG and you'lll see what I mean.

He had to put a positive spin on things. That doesn't mean he lied.

"only forced spin by the Bush Admin" = Not True - by clarke's own testimony.

CkG

Yes...it's true, CkG. You just have your lips so far up Bush's arse you cannot see the truth.

The Bush Administration SENT Clarke to FOX News and TOLD him what to say and is now using that against him!

H Y P O C R I T S ! ! !


What part of "And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them." do you not understand?

CkG

Again, CkG, where did I equate spin with lying? There's a way to tell the truth yet paint a rosier picture of the Bush Administration. That's what Clarke did in the interview with Jim Angle.

Although, I'm not surprised you support the Bush hypocrisy of sending him to FOX News and then using that interview against him now.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Read the transcripts, CkG and you'lll see what I mean.

He had to put a positive spin on things. That doesn't mean he lied.

"only forced spin by the Bush Admin" = Not True - by clarke's own testimony.

CkG

Yes...it's true, CkG. You just have your lips so far up Bush's arse you cannot see the truth.

The Bush Administration SENT Clarke to FOX News and TOLD him what to say and is now using that against him!

H Y P O C R I T S ! ! !


What part of "And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them." do you not understand?

CkG

Again, CkG, where did I equate spin with lying? There's a way to tell the truth yet paint a rosier picture of the Bush Administration. That's what Clarke did in the interview with Jim Angle.

Although, I'm not surprised you support the Bush hypocrisy of sending him to FOX News and then using that interview against him now.

the fact remains clarke is directly contradicting himself "spin" or not.

in fact it seems to me him saying he did not lie thenbut says bush "forced" him to "spin" is more clarke spinning than anyone...clarke is just not adding up.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I don't understand exactly how Clarke is contradicting himself. His basic premise is that he wanted the Bush Administration to do more than simply continue Clinton-era strategies vs AQ/terror. The administration didn't do that until it was too late.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
well, the bush admin did far less the clinton which is far worse. he said it himself, clinton had it as a priority, bush, it wasn't even relevant to bush...
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Clarke said "I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics." not Thompson.

It was cut-n-pasted from the Washington Post copy of the transcripts.

thats a sh*tty typo from a news agency:p i heard it plain, clarke said it:p obviously thats why theres applause.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't understand exactly how Clarke is contradicting himself. His basic premise is that he wanted the Bush Administration to do more than simply continue Clinton-era strategies vs AQ/terror. The administration didn't do that until it was too late.

well according to clark in 02, they did. and according to clarke in 04 what was said here is true

CLARKE: 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.



according to clarke(in '02) bush took clintons plan and not only started on it but added to it BEFORE 911 if these DIRECT statements by clarke are true even as he now says they ARE...he did NOT say anything untrue in the 02 interview then the bush administration did more to pursue al queada in 9 months than clinton did in 8 YEARS.

but now he says clinton did more...but oh wait!! both are true and he never lied then or now!



the truth is he did not think what he said then would come back to bite him on the @$$, but it did.





 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
you dolt, he was the mouthpiece for bush at the time. do you think he would have come out bad mouthing his boss to the press? do you notice how he was careful to say action wasn't taken? he didn't want to say something that was untrue, yet didn't want to make bush look bad, so he simply said that that bush "began"...instead of bush had already done... which could be stretched to mean anything including idle talk. its spin... welcome to the world of politics niave one. of course your're desperate to try to discredit him, so you can sleep soundly at night ignoring the damning things this REPUBLICAN has to say about your beloved bush.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
well according to clark in 02, they did. and according to clarke in 04 what was said here is true

CLARKE: 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.



according to clarke(in '02) bush took clintons plan and not only started on it but added to it BEFORE 911 if these DIRECT statements by clarke are true even as he now says they ARE...he did NOT say anything untrue in the 02 interview then the bush administration did more to pursue al queada in 9 months than clinton did in 8 YEARS.

but now he says clinton did more...but oh wait!! both are true and he never lied then or now!



the truth is he did not think what he said then would come back to bite him on the @$$, but it did.

So the Bush admin opens a dialog with Pakistan and you're claiming Bush did more in 8 months than Clinton did in 8 years? That's quite an exaggeration. Isn't it possible that Clinton opened dialogs with numerous countries as well? I hardly consider this as a substantial effort to do more considering Pakistan didn't do anything one way or another until post-9/11. It's not like this dialog that Washington had with Pakistan had any real effect until after the attacks and Mushie realized we were hell-bent on striking Afghanistan.

Is that all you've got?
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
you dolt, he was the mouthpiece for bush at the time. do you think he would have come out bad mouthing his boss to the press?[q/]


LOL!, you said "dolt" ;)

no, not til after he knew he was not going to ge the job he wanted...


Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
do you notice how he was careful to say action wasn't taken? he didn't want to say something that was untrue, yet didn't want to make bush look bad, so he simply said that that bush "began"...instead of bush had already done... which could be stretched to mean anything including idle talk. its spin... welcome to the world of politics niave one. of course your're desperate to try to discredit him, so you can sleep soundly at night ignoring the damning things this REPUBLICAN has to say about your beloved bush.

actually he listed specific actions taken, most of which are not going to happen overnight. or this scenario...

BUSH: hey, want to be on my team?

MUSHARRIF: gee, i dunno...

BUSH: pluhhhhhheeezzzzzzzz?

MUSHARRIF: okay!

BUSH: thx!

but of course when this came out it is much easier for dems to believe Clarke's version of "the devil made me do it!"
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
but of course when this came out it is much easier for dems to believe Clarke's version of "the devil made me do it!"

where in your world of reality does an advisor to someone powerful talk to the press and air disagreements in public while working for and representing them? doesn't happen. welcome to reality.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Anyone see Tuesday nights "Daily Show"? It was too funny...they played Scott Mclellan (sp?) press conference side by side with Condi on CNN, and they said THE EXACT SAME STUFF attacking Clarke....I mean word for word...they just alternated between them and they said all the same attacks, in all the same order, etc....it was too funny.

:D