Clarke implodes

Former Reagan Navy Secretary John Lehman of 9/11 commission is calling Clarke to task, questioning his integrity:

There's a tremendous difference -- not just in nuance but in the stories you choose to tell [the media] -- because it is so different from the whole thrust of the testimony you told us. I hope it's that your book promotion people have told you to say these things in the media because you've got a real credibility problem. Because of my long-term admiration for you, I hope you'll correct that problem.

"I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one," says Clarke. Does he protest too much?

Update: Now Bob Kerrey is trashing FOXNews for publicizing its 2002 "background" tape where Clarke speaks favorably of GW to Jim Engle.

Comments

[JT]

Umm.... Clarke says, under oath, that he won't take a position in the Kerry administration... And you call that "imploding"?

*sniff sniff* Smell that? It's desperation.

[BradDad]

Let me get this straight - Clarke said things to Jim Engle which don't jive with the story he's telling today; the goal of the 9/11 Commission is to get to the truth of these matters (stop laughing); and Kerrey is mad at ENGLE for pointing out the inconsistency in Clarke's stories?

[brendan]

Get the story straight: Clarke is sent out there 8/2002 by GWB to put the most positive spin on his uneven record in fighting terrorism -- accentuate the positive and diminish the negative. He does his duty, still hoping that this administration's record will improve. It doesn't. In fact they go down the very path he had tried to indicate was not right. The invasion of Iraq demonstrated that this administration was not pursuing the war on terror so much as their pre-determined agenda in the name of the WOT. And so he bolted and decided to criticize the President leading his nation into an ideological fog -- making it less safe rather than more safe. He is a patriot.

And their slimy, confused, internally contradictory attacks are only revealing how much his charges hurt and how dead-right he is.

[Robin Roberts]

to the contrary, brendan, the "internally contradictory attacks" are all that Clarke offers.

[Neil]

It's funny how you say that this is Clarke imploding. Fair and balanced I see. Maybe you should have included Mr. Clarke's retort to this round of questioning, the end of which was a pronouncement that the war in Iraq detracted from the war against Al Qaeda. What would such a post be titled? "Clarke sells out America"?

[Jim B]

BRENDAN SAID: "Get the story straight: Clarke is sent out there 8/2002 by GWB to put the most positive spin on his uneven record in fighting terrorism -- accentuate the positive and diminish the negative. He does his duty, still hoping that this administration's record will improve."

***

Sure, that's the argument that can be made, but that doesn't diminish his credibility problem. If the administration was abrogating its responsibilities to go after Al Qaeda in lieu of fomenting war with Iraq, then perhaps Mr Clarke should have spoken-up then and there... or, at a minimum, resigned in January 2003 rather than retiring, and aired his concerns in a public press conference.

But he didn't.

And now he's got a book out.

And it's in the midst of election campaign.

As a result, he's got a serious credibility problem because his current statements don't correspond to what he's said in the past, and the book and election present a conflict of interest.

In short, open your eyes, and put your critical thinking hat back on...

[JAG]

Brendan,

You need to look a bit closer at EVERYTHING Clarke has said and done.
Was he an "expert"? If so, why didn't Clinton do what he suggested in 98?
Is he widely respected? If so, again why didn't Clinton's people do what he is now suggesting should have been done, more swiftly, by Bush?
Is he a man of integrity? If so, why didn't he resign 9/12/01? Clearly Bush had already blown it by then in Clarke's testimony.
Why would he wait another year and THEN participate in LIES solely aimed at shoring up BUSH? Makes no sense.
If he was expert, in the loop with the Clintons and Bush, respected and had integrity he cannot defend his own actions much less point fingers at Bush.

[Brett]

hmm ... internal contradictions ...

Whatever the influence of Administration directives on Clarke's 2002 interview, it's spun far enough around so that either that interview or the book contains falsehoods. Neither side should take any comfort from either one, because the man is demonstrably dishonest. Whether he was taking orders is really immaterial.

(note: I am attributing the following opinions to Brendan by inference only)

8 years of escalating terror attacks under Clinton, with no appreciable response, is a valid and insightful plan to fight terrorism. W's taking a comparatively-short time to form his own plan to fight it, in an intervening time of no successful terror attacks, is a betrayal of the trust of the electorate. Ohhhhh Kayyyy.

[bob]

Book peddler... JFKerry(D) shill... Richard 'the Dick' Clark bears responsibility for 8 years of failure leading to 911 yet the media fawns when he points the finger in spite of well documented contradictions in his baseless accusations. - NRO

I wouldn't waste time replying to brendan - he's an obvious troll, or an active participant/shill in the "Clinton Terror Blame Game". Funny, he writes a lot like one of the leftist contributors on Reuters I dislike so much.

There is a good set of 4 articles on the subject at NRO - one of the better ones is this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/york200403230919.asp

There is a link over on Dangereus to all four of the NRO articles:

http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/Comments.asp?svComment=3494

[capt joe]

JT, well that wasn't what they asked him isn't it. They asked him to justify his comments and he responded with that freudian slip.

Want more?
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/degreeprog/courses.nsf/0/4548cb72b5f5d6c985256e06000afe33?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=1

by the way, who does Rand Beers works for? Ok, he is the policy advisor for Kerry.
case closed.

Brendan, yeah sure, whatever you say.
All the time before his book, he only had praise for GWB's handling of the WoT. Now that his book is released (early in time for the 911 commission since the original date was April) and he is being interviewed by the same company that is publishing his book, it is a different story.

And what about this one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

"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. "

five fold over clinton, sounds like bush screwed up. LOL

Want something that you sick?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/22/223420.shtml

Clarke turned down the opportunity to arrest Osama. What an idiot.

[Jesse]

Brendan, the Iraq war is a part of the war on terror. The biggest threat to Islamo-Facism is freedom, the freedom that the U.S. and the West represents. The West had been Al Qaeda's target since the first WTC bombing in 1993. Al Qaeda wanted to destroy our way of life. Now that we are attempting to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East, Al Qaeda and other terrorists are threatened. Ordinary Iraqis are finally getting a taste of the freedom that has been denied them for far too long. That freedom is beginning to ripple across the Middle East. Iranian students are protesting against the Mullahs, Syrians are taking to the streets and calling for change. A succesful transformation of Iraq from a brutal and corrupt dictatorship to a country of freedom and democracy will be a beacon of hope to the rest of the Middle East. So, get your head out of your ass and see the big picture: Iraq was part of a terror network (Clarke admitted that Saddam provided safe haven for terrorists responsible for the '93 WTC bombing) and taking the fight to Saddam and liberating Iraq was a huge step in transforming the Middle East. If you can't see that, you are the one with the slimy, internally contradictory feelings on the matter.

By the way, if Bush has an 'uneven' record of combating terrorism, what would you call Clinton's? What did Clinton due in 8 years, with Clarke as his so called 'terrorism' expert, to combat Al Qaeda? Not a friggin' thing, and Clarke knows this. He knows that Al Qaeda grew in power and stature under his and Clinton's watch, that they meekly responded to repeated attacks on Americans here and abroad, and that 9/11 was a culmination of their ineptitude in handling the situation. If Clinton seriously wanted to pursue Al Qaeda, why did he never once make the case to the American people that they needed to be destroyed? Not once during his presidency did Clinton address the nation, even after repeated attacks, that Al Qaeda was a well organized machine that recieved aid and comfort from several Middle Eastern countries? Where was Dick Clarke during the Clinton years, and why does he expect that Bush should have accomplished in 7 1/2 months what Clinton couldn't do in 8 years?
Bottom line is that Clarke failed, Clinton failed, and we have been cleaning up that mess for 3 1/2 years now.

[kozinski]

Lets get the story straight Brendon: Clarke will say anything he is told to say by who ever trots him out there? One way or another his credibility suffers. If Clarke said last year that Bush did everything he could of, and this year he says Bush ignored the terrorist threat, the only possible explanation is that Clarke changed his story to sell more books.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"And their slimy, confused, internally contradictory attacks are only revealing how much his charges hurt and how dead-right he is."

That is quite an interesting interpretation. What's your interpretation of someone robbing a bank? Equitably redistributing wealth stolen by Republicans?

[serona]

Clarke's 2002 comments should be relatively easy to validate/invalidate as they are absolutely clear: Bush increased funding for anti Al Qaeda activity over what Clinton did, Bush changed Clinton's Al Qaeda policy from "roll back" to "eliminate" (supported under oath today to the 9-11 commission), and the focus on leveraging the Northern Aliance, Uzbekistan, etc against the Taliban - previously tabled issues under Clinton etc.

Instead of bickering, see which of Clarke's stories is true. And post the links.

[Sissy Willis]

You guys are totally scary...Can we talk?

[brendan]

Look, I guess I am an unwelcome troll here. I linked to this site from Instapundit because of the sensational "Clarke implodes" phrase. I wasn't sure this was a Savage Nation sort of website. I know people tend to huddle with their own kind. I obviously made a mistake and I apologize for it. I didn't have my 'right-thinking' cap on when I made my comments. Obviously I don't belong here. I promise never to come back and to speak positively about you in future. So I'll just be going. Sorry.

Brendan ... a historian hustling away into the night hoping they won't be following to beat him up ...

[steve]

No matter how you slice it, Clarke was there for 8 years with Clinton and 7 months with Bush and then blames Bush for 9/11?

I am not the brightest guy in the world but even I understand this idiocy of this claim.

[finnman69]

Ok, so in 2002 Clarke said that the Bush administration -- from day one -- told him to "vigorously pursue" the Clinton administration policy that allowed the United States to kill Osama bin Laden if the opportunity arose. In addition, he said that in the spring of 2001 Bush committed to a "five-fold" increase in CIA resources dedicated to going after the al Qaeda leader.

Now fast forward to today.

In testimony Tuesday before the independent commission investigating the September 11 attacks, Clarke said he was asked to present information to reporters at that briefing "in a way that minimized criticism of the administration," but was not told to make "an untrue case."

"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 said. "As a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents."

So if Clarke was truthfully speaking but minimizing the negatives and promoting the positives, certainly the positives are true. Bush was vigorously trying to get rid of OBL, according to Clarke.

[bob]

There is history, and there is spin. I'd love to see the points iterated and justifications presented for

"And their slimy, confused, internally contradictory attacks are only revealing how much his charges hurt and how dead-right he is."

Sounds more like part of a writing portfolio for a job application the the LA or NY "dog trainer" Times papers. That might even be classified *editor* grade "historical" material for CNN...

Conservatives happen to like *FACTS*, so please let's back up and start with your explanation and justification of the following terms in that sentence:

"slimy"
"confused"
"internally contradictory attacks"

As relates to the GWB and not the Clinton administration, please.....

[willow]

jeebus, Brendan, you don't need a 'right thinking cap' on, you just need a thinking cap.

[capt joe]

Brendan, you came to Sissy's site and started blasting her. She had links and quotes, you had attitude. Now you blame her for suppressing your rights. Sounds sort of like the rightous peasant sketch from Monty Pythons's holy grail. "I'm being oppressed, I'm being oppressed".

So you were slammed to the mat. What did you expect.

You weren't offering discourse, you were out to punch someone in the nose. Now you are upset at the result.

You need to apologize for being a wanker to Sissy in whose house you pounced by your own invitation.

great site Sissy, regards

[Dustin]

Obviously Brendan is a post and run troll, and you guys have made your point excellently, so excellently it's as though Brandan was setting the stage for you.

Anyway, just ignore him please. Clarke is a nonissue now. If anything, he's kinda demonstrating what the Kerry admin might do in power . . . cut terror 5 times and worry about infighting and blame games.

Under Clarke, how many terror acts? Dozens of major ones? Under Bush one? yeah one is too many, but at least he got the point and fixed the problem. Easy to play monday QB, but I only see one side actually learning lessons and fixing problems.

[JackAssFestival]

A couple of comments. Im suspicious of Clarke because of the timing of HIS book. It came out at about the same time he is testifying. A good marketing ploy. Second, I work for a large governmental organization that rhymes with Mate Department. I was waiting for an elevator yesterday and watching the news on the lobby tv and Clarke was talking. Dont know if it was an interview or what, but the guy standing next to me says "WHAT AN ASSHOLE". I was like "hmmm, what do you mean, do you know him or something?". He says "KNOW HIM? I used to work for the bastard." Anyway, Im suspicious of him. For whatever its worth.
Next, and even though Im a democrat (I do have the registration if you dont believe me), Im voting for BUSH. The reason is that Bush is more motivated to make Iraq and the WOT work. If Kerry wins, whenever something shitty happens, he will blame it on the previous administration. Right or wrong, that's politics. Bush will have more accountability than Kerry. Besides, Im getting pissed off by Maxine Waters lately because every turd that pops out of her mouth is about someone being racist and Im sort of getting sick of it.

[Tom Maguire]

"I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one," says Clarke.

Too bad. With these flip-flops, he'd be perfect.

[sytrek]

For all the publicity that Clarke’s comments are getting, the fact that the 9/11 commission did find that the administration had just completed prior to 9/11 a plan to go after the Taliban and Al Qaeda has been widely ignored. Details here