Clarke exposed as a fake.

[Ronnie Raygun]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

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, in late 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.

[thebiggameover]

edit: nevermind. i'm too lazy to get in to it...

[mburbank]

Naldo, you cretin, this has already been adressed in more than one thread today, Clarke was aksed about this during testimony yesterday and responded under oath and we've been talking about it all day.

He said, in short, that he was putting the best possible spin on the cacts as was required by the president, which you'd know if you frequented a news source more reliable than fox.

The only thing exposed here is that you don't read.

[The One and Only...]

That's the exact thing we're questioning - what he said.

How do we know this guy isn't saying these things for political reasons? Don't you find it odd that he would wait until now to come out? Don't you think that, given such an opportunity as there was with this interview, Clarke would have put the truth out much sooner if setting the record strait has been his intent?

[Ronnie Raygun]

Exactly.

He's already been exposed as a liar so how can you believe anything he says.........unless it suits your agenda of course.

.....and to call me a "cretin", .....really?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

POLITICAL REASONS?????? IT WAS A BUSH ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUM, HE WAS ASKED TO WRITE IT BY THE ADMINISTRATION.......!!

I hope the bogus attacks continue on this guy. It's the Bush administration's m.o., but this time it will prove to bite them in the ass. People are taking Richard Clarke very seriously, and it's time for the Bush team to do the same.

[VinceZeb]

It's amazing that if a Democrat is proven to be a two-faced liar, it's about politics. If a Republican "plays politics", then he is an evil liar who rapes schoolgirls and eats babies.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

He was asked to play politics by the very same administration which is now trying to use it against him.

Here's what I love. When people who have nothing other than a record of selfless service to their country get demonized by a pack of selfish, useless, silver spoon born aristocrats from Connecticut et. al. It's kind of like a legitimate war veteran, ie. John Kerry and Max Cleland, getting demonized by cowardly chicken hawks who like to plan invading countries, but would rather avoid the hands on work.

Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING has proven this man to be a liar or even an opportunist. The fact that the man praised the Bush administration a little over a year ago, while simultaneously outlining the substantive steps that needed to be taken in light of 9/11, only shows that the man puts service and policy initiative before partisan politics. This Bush administration is the polar opposite of these character traits. You want political opportunism, look at releasing the identity of a man's CIA wife b/c he told the fucking truth. You want political opportunism, look at having a questionable internet/sex sting brought against a man who served his country in the Gulf War and then as a weapons inspector. You want political opportunism, just wait. The stuff Rove and his attack dogs have pulled out on this guy, book deals, liberal associates, etc., are NOTHING compared to what they'll need to do in order to derail this. Maybe we can count on more self-imposed office bugging, maybe some smear campaigns over how Richard Clarke treats his wife, or perhaps an old college friend will come out of the wood works to enlighten us on how ol' Dick loved to hit the pipe back at State.

I expect nothing less than this from this administration.

[VinceZeb]

I can sum up Kevin's spin:

"Even though Clarke has been proven to be a two-faced liar and the media has pumped his book through the freaking roof, I will believe anything he says because he is an enemy of the Bush administration. I will also bring up John Kerry being a Rambo-type while spitting on the likes of Oliver North, who didn't accept band-aid Purple Hearts so he could stay in Vietnam."

But, to you, Clarke didn't lie. I guess someone hacked into the computer file that his book was located in and put that section about how the Condi Rice looked like she had never heard of Al-Queda, even though she was on a radio station BEFORE 9-11 talking about Osama, his organization, and the Bush plans to stop it and others like it.

[mburbank]

1.) Clarke is a registered Republican and has been his entire adult life. He's also an ardent Hawk who testified that while he thought Clinton did better job than Bush, it was nowhere good enough, it failed.

2.) Since he stated under oath that he would not accept work from the Kerry administration, and now doing so would make him guilty of perjury, I'm not sure what political reasons you think motivated him.

If all you mean is that he wants Kerry to win, well duh. He has said publicly he thinks Bush has done a terrible job. If that's what he thinks, of course he wants Kerry to win.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

But, to you, Clarke didn't lie. I guess someone hacked into the computer file that his book was located in and put that section about how the Condi Rice looked like she had never heard of Al-Queda, even though she was on a radio station BEFORE 9-11 talking about Osama, his organization, and the Bush plans to stop it and others like it.

Yeah, I'll bet the same hacker busted into the Condi Rice's computer and told her to deny Clarke's involvement in policy, or to otherwise state that he was "out of the loop." The head of counter-terrorism. The guy who briefed them on the severity of the Al-Queda threat. Right. So either the Condi Rice is a liar, or the Bush administration is neglegent and retarded. Which one is it?

Furthermore, I don't necessarily believe everything this guy said. However, he carries much stronger credentials than those who are now attempting to smear him. Poorly at that. "Uhhh, we never recall that meeting happening in the situation room, uhhhh."

So Vince, FLAT OUT-- WHERE HAS HE LIED? WHERE HAS HE BEEN INCONSISTENT? OUTLINE THIS, DON'T JUST RANT LIKE A FOOL.

"I will also bring up John Kerry being a Rambo-type while spitting on the likes of Oliver North, who didn't accept band-aid Purple Hearts so he could stay in Vietnam."

Oliver North is a convicted criminal. That is a side point from whether or not he puts his money where his mouth is. I don't like Ollie North, I disagree with Ollie North, but I certainly believe that he thought he was doing what was best for America. That has little to do with the cowards in the White House who are setting our current foreign policy, so please, try to stay on topic, ok skipper?

[VinceZeb]

Oliver North is a convincted criminal......So I guess Clinton is a convicted criminal as well?

But to argue your point about Clarke's flawless testamony, I would have to copy and paste everything said before and put it in front of you again.

Are you seriously this stupid or are you living in your own little world? I would like the number to the superintendent of schools to where you are employeed. I would like to inform them that if you teach children like you argue on here that you should be fired post-haste.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

But to argue your point about Clarke's flawless testamony, I would have to copy and paste everything said before and put it in front of you again.

Granted. Let's just hit some of the most erronious ones then, okay? Like, top 5. That should be okay, right?

Are you seriously this stupid or are you living in your own little world? I would like the number to the superintendent of schools to where you are employeed. I would like to inform them that if you teach children like you argue on here that you should be fired post-haste.

No mother raping and dad sodomizing? You've lost your touch.

[The One and Only...]

Kevin, you don't understand.

If we accept that Clarke swallowed his integrity as the Bush administration asked, then we accept that Clarke willingly distorted the facts. That means that Clarke can hardly be considered trustworthy.

If we accept that Clarke spoke the truth earlier, then he must be lying now.

[AChimp]

Says the guy who's never had a job. If you don't do what the boss wants, well, there's always someone else who is willing.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

OAO-

Right, that's why I'm waiting on Vince (and you, if you like) to list the top 5 lies and distortions of Richard Clarke.

[mburbank]

Clarke lied to the same degree and lesser degrees about the raw war as every other member of this administration from W on down. He has in fact outright lied not at all, maintaining denaibility, leaving things out, pretty much the way Condi rice, Wolfwowitz and Rumsfeld have.

W and Cheney have told outright lies on the same subject.

If what you mean is that everyone who has worked for the Bush administration is so tainted that not a single word they say can be held credible, I'm fine with inlcuding Clarke in that statement.

I think we should put ALL of them under oath in public and declassify their statements prior to this point, because unfortunately, skirting the truth in press briefings and even lieing in the state of the union adress are not crimes.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Top five. That's all.

[ziggytrix]

Was he lying when he said Bush set back the war on terror by invading Iraq?

Was he lying when he said Bush asked for "any shred" of evidence linking Hussien to 9-11?

Was he lying when he said he thought the Clinton administration handled anti-terrorism better than the Bush admin, even though he said they both failed?


It's all a bunch of partisan bullshit anyway. You fucks can't or won't get it through your heads that ascribing to a political party platform does NOT require you to agree with everything said party's leaders do or say.

[mburbank]

It DOESN'T?! Shit, Ziggy, do you have any idea how much THINKING this means I have to do now? On my OWN?! Why didn't anyone TELL me about this?!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/po...partner=GOOGLE

March 28, 2004
Ex-Bush Aide Calls for Testimony on Terrorism to Be Opened
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

In the aftermath of his testimony before the Sept. 11 commission last week, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief said he would welcome declassification of his testimony two years ago before a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry into the attacks on the United States.

On Friday, Republican Congressional leaders said that they would seek to declassify past Congressional testimony from Richard A. Clarke, a former National Security Council aide, in an effort to demonstrate he had lied this week about Mr. Bush's record.

"Let's declassify everything," Mr. Clarke said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press."

He also said that the private testimony of the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, before the commission should be declassified. He added that e-mail messages, memos and all other correspondence between Ms. Rice and Mr. Clarke should be included in that.
<snip>

<snip>
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...fVrxY&refer=us

Sept. 11 Commission Will Press for Public Testimony From Rice

March 28 (Bloomberg) -- The independent panel investigating U.S. intelligence failures before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks will continue pressuring the White House to let National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testify in public.

The commission won't force Rice to testify in an open hearing by issuing a subpoena because that would delay the investigation, said Tom Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who is leading the probe said.

``We will accept any testimony from Dr. Rice that she has to offer,'' Kean said on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program. ``But we are still going to press, and still believe unanimously as a commission, that we should hear from her in public.''<snip>


SING WITH ME!!!

I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she was gonna meet her connection
At her feet was a footloose man

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you might find
You get what you need

And I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, we're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need

I went down to the chelsea drugstore
To get your prescription filled
I was standing in line with mr. jimmy
And man, did he look pretty ill
We decided that we would have a soda
My favorite flavor, cherry red
I sung my song to mr. jimmy
Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was dead
I said to him

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need
You get what you need--yeah, oh baby

I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need