[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
good point.

Which of Clarke's comments has more merit:

A) The comments he made while recieving a paycheck for his job duties.

B) The comments he made while recieving royalties from the sale of his book.

Which of Rice's comments has more merit:

A) The comments she made while recieving a paycheck for her job duties.

B) The comments she made while refuting someone else's book that tends to put her in a bad light.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by dialo:
Except that we know what Clarke is saying is the truth because it's corroborated by:

Beers...

Beers, who is now working for Kerry.

... Hart and Rudman

How do THEY corroborate Clarke? Basically, they studied the issue and came up with a plan but according to them, the Bush admin decided on a different approach.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think the answer is no, she wasn't under oath. I vaguely recall reading that somewhere. But I'm not sure.

As for the principled part of the matter (which is parallel to the unmistakable political aspect) yes, there is a difference between discussing the matter in public and submitting to subpoena and being put under oath as a witness. When you do that, you are admitting the right of the body to subpoena and put you under oath. Look at this away from the politics for a second and think of it solely from the point of view of whether the temporary custodians of one branch of the government (the Executive) can afford to let the temporary custodians of another branch (the Legislature) create that precedent. The answer, quite apart from temporary politics, is no. That's why all presidents since Washington have asserted their executive privilege. And equally, why every Congress has pushed back.

That makes sense but she wasn't subpoenaed, was she? She was just requested to testify, which she could've refused. In fact, I would think she would use Executive Privilege in that case. But she didn't. She didn't 'admit the right of the body to subpoena and put her under oath'.

She seems to be standing on legal precedent that isn't applicable, at least in this specific case. Since she wasn't subpoenaed, wasn't under oath, then to claim executive privilege by refusing public testimony, it seems to me, is an incorrect exercise of that term.

From a political standpoint I understand completely. Why go in front of a Commission, not under oath, when you might have to explain at some point later that you might not have told the entire story. To protect either your own credibility or even for National Security concerns.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Now, what could happen is that the president could agree to allow one of his representatives (his assistant) testify, but only on condition that the testimony not be under oath. My guess is that what happened, and may well happen again.

Interesting.

But what value is the testimony when you're not accountable for your answers?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Interesting.

But what value is the testimony when you're not accountable for your answers?

precisely.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That makes sense but she wasn't subpoenaed, was she? She was just requested to testify, which she could've refused. In fact, I would think she would use Executive Privilege in that case. But she didn't. She didn't 'admit the right of the body to subpoena and put her under oath'.

She seems to be standing on legal precedent that isn't applicable, at least in this specific case. Since she wasn't subpoenaed, wasn't under oath, then to claim executive privilege by refusing public testimony, it seems to me, is an incorrect exercise of that term.

From a political standpoint I understand completely. Why go in front of a Commission, not under oath, when you might have to explain at some point later that you might not have told the entire story. To protect either your own credibility or even for National Security concerns.

You can be subpoened or not and still be put under oath, or vice versa. The two aren't connected.

The point is, the president doesn't have to let her go at all. Equally, he can put restrictions on what she can, and cannot tell Congress and Congress cannot compel her. She's a presidential assistant, and Congress simply has no right to oversight over White House staff, and no right to assert it.

Draw three equal boxes, none higher or more important than the other. Then imagine one of the boxes reaches over and grabs a chunk of the other. That's basically what the 9/11 Commission wants to do. Any president would say no.

[dialo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Beers, who is now working for Kerry.

Exactly. Let it sink in.

How do THEY corroborate Clarke? Basically, they studied the issue and came up with a plan but according to them, the Bush admin decided on a different approach.

Anyone else have some time to waste explaining to roger what's going on around him?

[Zimphire]

Someone wring this thread out.

It's drenched with Democratic desperation.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You can be subpoened or not and still be put under oath, or vice versa. The two aren't connected.

The point is, the president doesn't have to let her go at all. Equally, he can put restrictions on what she can, and cannot tell Congress and Congress cannot compel her. She's a presidential assistant, and Congress simply has no right to oversight over White House staff, and no right to assert it.

Draw three equal boxes, none higher or more important than the other. Then imagine one of the boxes reaches over and grabs a chunk of the other. That's basically what the 9/11 Commission wants to do. Any president would say no.

I understand separation of powers. I understand executive privilege.

My point is that she's claiming executive privilege to refuse public testimony. Refusing to re-state testimony she voluntarily, or with her superior's approval, gave in private.

Since she volunteered to testify in private her refusal to do so publicly is purely for other (political?) reasons. It isn't to stand on principle regarding executive priveldge. If so, she should've claimed that when she was asked to testify in private.

She doesn't want to get into a public pissing match with Clarke. Whether it's under oath or NOT under oath.

Again, I'm trying not to make a judgment regarding her political reasons. I agree that ANY administration would and should try to protect its standing.

I'm saying that she's claiming, or others are, an excuse to not publicly testify when she's already crossed that line, voluntarily.

I guess that's just how the game is played.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Scumbag. "I'm just a simple God-fearin' Midwestern guy; I don't understand all these 'politics'." Easier than admitting you just had your ass handed to you, I suppose. What an embarrassment to Illinois.

Yes, that was pretty comical. I respect Thompson for what he did re: the death penalty, but to suggest that Illinois governors aren't political animals is like suggesting that Barry Bonds isn't a baseball player. I mean, when it comes to political chicanery, Illinois is one of the worst.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I understand separation of powers. I understand executive privilege.

My point is that she's claiming executive privilege to refuse public testimony. Refusing to re-state testimony she voluntarily, or with her superior's approval, gave in private.

Since she volunteered to testify in private her refusal to do so publicly is purely for other (political?) reasons. It isn't to stand on principle regarding executive priveldge. If so, she should've claimed that when she was asked to testify in private.

She doesn't want to get into a public pissing match with Clarke. Whether it's under oath or NOT under oath.

Again, I'm trying not to make a judgment regarding her political reasons. I agree that ANY administration would and should try to protect its standing.

I'm saying that she's claiming, or others are, an excuse to not publicly testify when she's already crossed that line, voluntarily.

I guess that's just how the game is played.

I really doubt that the conversations she has had with journalists exactly coincide with the scope of testimony were she to appear under oath in front of Congress. So we can't say for sure that what she would testify to is already in the public domain. And if it is, then there is no need to bring her in. The Commissioners could just read the transcript.

More to the point, if the president were to submit members of his staff to testimony under oath, there would be no way to limit what they are questioned. The questioning could continue on into other areas, and the questioned person could be placed in the dilemma of risking criminal prosecution, or asserting a privilege that may not be hers by Constitutional right to assert in her personal capacity. (It's been a while since I looked at it, but I believe that executive privilege would not shield her personally from a contempt charge, probably even if she were under presidential orders not to testify on a matter).

There is also, of course, just the principle of the matter from a precedent point of view. You might want to consider that. Next time it could be a Democratic White House facing what you might suspect is a politically motivated Congressional probe.

No. If the Commission really wants her testimony it has to be on terms agreeable to the other branch, and that means that Congress has to ask nicely, it can't demand. That's not saying this might not be convenient for the White House, but Congress can't feign surprise. That's part of the political game. They are demanding that the president's staff be put under oath knowing full well that no president would accept. And isn't it great politics?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Yes, that was pretty comical. I respect Thompson for what he did re: the death penalty, but to suggest that Illinois governors aren't political animals is like suggesting that Barry Bonds isn't a baseball player. I mean, when it comes to political chicanery, Illinois is one of the worst.

You're thinking of Gov. George Ryan, also a craven political animal, but one who at least took a small step toward redeeming himself in the end.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Thompson's the scumbag? Did you read that press briefing?

Yes�and the issue of Clarke's veracity is completely separate from Thompson's blinkered, phony naivet� about how politics actually works. When the applauding spectators made it clear just how out of touch he was with common everyday political life (and how refreshing it was to hear a man like Clarke openly say things everyone already knows while pretending they don't), Thompson tried to make as if simple common Illinois folk don't rightly understand them there "politics"�and that, as an Illinoisan, embarrasses and offends me.

[LeftHandedMiddleChild]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but why would it be stupid or naive to allow her to swear what she says is true?

She's making accusationst that what Clarke says is untrue...so its a valid area that she has brought up herself. If Clarke will say what he knows under oath, and she calls him a liar but refuses to be under oath........conclusions will be drawn.

condy is an "evil" and "dangerous" b*tch.

[zigzag]

Both Clarke and Rice have made conflicting statements along the way, so they're even in that respect. Clarke has a chip on his shoulder and a book to sell, but Rice has far more to lose, so she has as much or more reason to fib, and Clarke was under oath. Certainly some of Clarke's statements have been calculated to save face, as have some of Rice's, although Clarke is the first and only official to accept a degree of responsibility for what happened. He's also a Republican, has also criticized the Clinton administration, and has said that of the Presidents he's served, Bush I was the most capable in foreign affairs.

So, in the credibility sweepstakes, Clarke could be considered ahead, but that could reflect my biases so for the sake of argument let's call it even.

When you have conflicting statements, you look to whether they can be explained. I think Clarke has given a plausible if not 100% convincing explanation - he was being political. He admits that politics often means spinning things, an admission that gives him additional credibility in my book. I don't think you'll hear Condi Rice admit that she sometimes spins things. It was rather comical to see Governor Thompson pretend that he was unfamiliar with the practice.

You also look to any corroborating evidence. As I see it, the White House's own staff reports, the statements of O'Neill et al., Bush's own statements, and the rather plain fact that the administration did little or nothing pro-active before 9/11, among other things, do a pretty good job of corroborating Clarke's sworn testimony. Rice, on the other hand, seems to be saying "We were paying close attention but you'll mostly have to take my word for it."

Concluding that the Bush administration took its eye off the al Qaeda ball doesn't necessarily require one to condemn it. It can be regarded as an ordinary political reality - they had different priorities, and made different judgments, than Clinton did or that Clarke wanted them to. That's a risk in any organization, especially in a transition period. But every voter has the right to make a judgment as to whether the administration made sound and competent decisions during that period and I think it would be imprudent to simply dismiss Clarke and O'Neill and Beers et al. out of hand.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
You're thinking of Gov. George Ryan, also a craven political animal, but one who at least took a small step toward redeeming himself in the end.

Right - thanks for the clarification. Either way, Thompson looked ridiculous pretending that he was unfamiliar with the practice of spinning.

[LeftHandedMiddleChild]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Someone wring this thread out.

It's drenched with Democratic desperation.

It's drenched with Republican desperation
Typical Republican Zombies

[dialo]

Originally posted by LeftHandedMiddleChild:
It's drenched with Republican desperation
Typical Republican Zombies

However, it should be noted that not all republicans are in the Church of Bush.

I can think of one who testified yesterday...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Concluding that the Bush administration took its eye off the al Qaeda ball doesn't necessarily require one to condemn it.

But how does that square with Clarke's 2002 testimony:

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: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no � one, there was no [Clinton] 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 [Bush] administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

(quote lifted from Instapundit).

A 5 fold increase in the covert budget doesn't sound like taking its eye of the al-Queda ball. Especially given that the increase couldn't have taken effect until the first Bush budget the following year. 2001 was still under Clinton's budget.

I think also there has to be an understanding that when Administrations change there is always a period of relative chaos. People have to be hired, confirmed, settle in to offices, get their bearings institutionally, and so on. That's got to be part of the mix if we are going to be realistic.

[dialo]

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?

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. I don't get that.

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

THOMPSON: 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.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I really doubt that the conversations she has had with journalists exactly coincide with the scope of testimony were she to appear under oath in front of Congress. So we can't say for sure that what she would testify to is already in the public domain. And if it is, then there is no need to bring her in. The Commissioners could just read the transcript.

More to the point, if the president were to submit members of his staff to testimony under oath, there would be no way to limit what they are questioned. The questioning could continue on into other areas, and the questioned person could be placed in the dilemma of risking criminal prosecution, or asserting a privilege that may not be hers by Constitutional right to assert in her personal capacity. (It's been a while since I looked at it, but I believe that executive privilege would not shield her personally from a contempt charge, probably even if she were under presidential orders not to testify on a matter).

There is also, of course, just the principle of the matter from a precedent point of view. You might want to consider that. Next time it could be a Democratic White House facing what you might suspect is a politically motivated Congressional probe.

No. If the Commission really wants her testimony it has to be on terms agreeable to the other branch, and that means that Congress has to ask nicely, it can't demand. That's not saying this might not be convenient for the White House, but Congress can't feign surprise. That's part of the political game. They are demanding that the president's staff be put under oath knowing full well that no president would accept. And isn't it great politics?

Then why have any public testimony at all then? There must be a perceived value to it since they insist upon it. Considering that most, if not all, have testified in private, there must be more value than just reading a transcript.

No limit? That's a bit of a straw man, don't you think? Bush could put conditions, time and subjects, on any of his assistants who testify. Probably did when Powell, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz testified. They were under oath. Why is he protecting, or hiding, Rice? I'm sure she wouldn't be required to regurgitate the complete 4 hours of testimony she already provided. Besides that's why it's a bipartisan panel. Plus, I don't think a Republican Chairman (Kean) would let it get out of hand.

Maybe we were cross-posting and you missed my point. I agree and support any administrations use of executive privilege. I'm saying it's a bit disingenuous, (or overtly political) of Rice to be claiming executive privilege when she's already crossed that line voluntarily. I wish someone would call her on it. Not likely when she's only making the rounds of softball morning talk shows. Unless you think of Katie Couric as a tough inquisitor?

Anyway, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I was just looking for an informed discussion, which you provided.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by dialo:
Exactly. Let it sink in.

In other words, the issue of Beers' conflict of interest doesn't interest you.

Anyone else have some time to waste explaining to roger what's going on around him?

Hart-Rudman simply presented a plan. It wasn't the word of God. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Did the actions taken by the Bush admin show they didn't take the problem seriously? No. In the press briefing Clarke said the admin wanted a five-fold increase in the budget for covert operations. Moreover, Clarke said Bush changed the strategy from one of "rollback" (over the course of five years) to the "rapid elimination of Al Qaeda". How is that not taking the problem seriously?

Senators Hart and Rudman are free to speculate that their proposals, if implemented, may have prevented 911. Maybe they would have. Ditto for Clarke. Problem is, by the summer of 2001 it was already too late. The terrorists were already in this country. Attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan wouldn't have stopped the 911 hijackers from fulfilling their plan.

You need to waste a little time understanding the issue better.

[dialo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
In other words, the issue of Beers' conflict of interest doesn't interest you.

Beers doesn't have a conflict of interest.

Beers was appointed to Clarke's former position as chief counter-terrorism advisor in mid 2002. He was appointed by the Bush administration to this position. He stayed there until his resignation at the beginning of the war, and almost immediately went to the kerry campaign, which at the time looked like it had zero chance of winning.

Like Clarke, beers worked under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and well into Bush II. That makes 3 Republican administrations and 1 Democratic one.

We are talking about a political appointee in 3 republican administrations, a political appointee that was selected by Bush in 2002 to be his principal advisor on counter-terrorism.

He went to work with Kerry to get Bush out of office, for the reasons he and Clarke have described.

I don't have time to respond to the rest of your clearly misguided post.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by LeftHandedMiddleChild:


condy is an "evil" and "dangerous" b*tch.

Oh c'mon. That's a bit much.

OT - I actually met and talked to Rice once. Ok, Ok, it wasn't a political roundtable but at an Irish Bar in Palo Alto. But still....she seemed nice and personable. This was when she was at Stanford. Even before that I remember she wrote a 'Letter to the Editor' of Time regarding some article. I remember it because I saved it. It's always been one of my favorite quotes. I'll post it if anybody is interested.

Just a little name-dropping...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Then why have any public testimony at all then?

As Mel Brooks aptly put it: Politics, politics, politics, politics, politics.

You raise 2 points that I think deserve comment.

1. Could Bush put limits on Rice if she testified? Yes I'm sure he could. But would that mean that Congress would respect them? Once they have her under oath, they can demand that she cooperate with them, or face jail. And there wouldn't be a damned thing that the president could do about it. Except possibly pardon her (though I'm not sure if the pardon power extends to contempt of Congress, its an interesting question -- is contempt an offense against the United States, or just an offense against Congress?).

2. Why are cabinet officers put under oath, when administrations object to putting presidential staff under oath?

I think the reason is that cabinet departments are created by congressional statute. That gives Congress the right (and probably duty) to conduct oversight. Congress isn't invading the president's exclusive constitutional jurisdiction when they demand testimony from heads of cabinet departments. Although (most of) those departments are located functionally in the executive, they are constitutionally in an area of shared responsibility. Congress has oversight powers, and the Senate has to confirm "Officers." So Congress can demand that the heads of departments testify, although there is a tradition of foot-dragging and standing on protocol.

But in any case, the Senate does not confirm the Special Assistants to the President, nor can Congress they remove them, nor does it have any oversight over the White House. So it's a different situation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Just a little name-dropping...

You got me beat. I just found myself stuck in traffic in front of her last Saturday. At least, I'm fairly sure it was her.

Nice SUV.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by dialo:
Beers doesn't have a conflict of interest.

Beers was appointed to Clarke's former position as chief counter-terrorism advisor in mid 2002. He was appointed by the Bush administration to this position. He stayed there until his resignation at the beginning of the war, and almost immediately went to the kerry campaign, which at the time looked like it had zero chance of winning...

Nonsense. In March of 2003 Dean had yet to make his move to the front of the pack. Kerry was still the presumptive frontrunner.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dialo:
Like Clarke, beers worked under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and well into Bush II. That makes 3 Republican administrations and 1 Democratic one.

2 slices of reality:

First, Democrats do go to work for Republicans, and liberals for conservatives, and Realists for Wilsonians, and all the other stripes in between.

Second reality, as people become more senior, their personal politics becomes more of an issue. A low level person in the Reagan Administration becomes a less-low level person in the first Bush Administration, who becomes a mid ranking, and then a senior person in the two terms of the Clinton Administration. As he rises, he becomes politically invested in the politics of the administration where he made his mark.

That's why, for example, a career State Department person like Richard Holbrooke could move from Administration to Administration while he was a relative peon, but not once he had become heavily identified with a political party at the senior levels.

In the case of Clarke, it seems he is not so much invested with a party as with a world view. Plus, he's pissed that he didn't get promoted to Homeland Security's #2 spot. Which raises a question: would a selfless whistleblower wait to see if he is going to get promoted before blowing the whistle, or not? Or is it that his star was rising under Clinton, and started to fall under Bush?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Nonsense. In March of 2003 Dean had yet to make his move to the front of the pack. Kerry was still the presumptive frontrunner.

Really confused why that makes any difference whatsoever, frankly.
If he is saying something out partisanship, then merely prove him wrong. Easy enough.

besides, if you're going to discount anyone says who is working to elect a president because of a conflict of interest...guess who else you have to discount? That's right: Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney. The very fact that Bush is running for reelection means they have a vested interest in protecting him in the public perception. Therefore, they have a great deal of incentive to lie, then, too, wouldn't they? By your own criteria?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In the case of Clarke, it seems he is not so much invested with a party as with a world view. Plus, he's pissed that he didn't get promoted to Homeland Security's #2 spot. Which raises a question: would a selfless whistleblower wait to see if he is going to get promoted before blowing the whistle, or not? Or is it that his star was rising under Clinton, and started to fall under Bush?

Do you have anything which backs that assertion up? I mean, I've heard Rice say similar, and a bunch of republicans say that, but they never have anything to back it up that I'm aware of, and Clarke denies it.
Since Clarke would be the best judge of whether it was sour grapes or not, unless people who claim that have something better than just their telepathy, I don't see where anyone can make that assertion.

It could be true, of course, but I'd to see someone provide some validity for why you think its true.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Since Clarke would be the best judge of whether it was sour grapes or not,

No, he's the worst person to judge whether it is sour grapes -- still less admit it.

My reason for suspecting sour grapes is simply his motives, incentives, and behavior. I don't have to be a psychic to see it stinks.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Really confused why that makes any difference whatsoever, frankly...

Clarke's already been proved wrong by his own words. That apparently isn't enough for dialo (or others in this thread) so, yes, I question Clarke's and Beers' motives. People do that to President Bush and his admin all the time. How many times have we heard that the Iraq war was for oil? Or the Afghan war was to build a pipeline?

OT: why am I not still on your ignore list?

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Plus, he's pissed that he didn't get promoted to Homeland Security's #2 spot.

When people say stuff like this, you usually challenge them to back it up. The only sources I read for this are people who are pretty much obliged to defend the administration no matter what, i.e., Scott McClellan. Wouldn't you rather contradict Clarke on the basis of his actual accusations rather than pass along an ad hominem that doesn't really address the big issue, in any event?

Please note that I'm not actually even expressing any agreement or disagreement with your position on that aforementioned big issue -- it just seems like you're being a tad unfair here. Why just repeat stuff from a political party's sheet of talking points?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, he's the worst person to judge whether it is sour grapes -- still less admit it.

My reason for suspecting sour grapes is simply his motives, incentives, and behavior. I don't have to be a psychic to see it stinks.

you have proof of his motives, incentives? Interesting. Care to lay those out?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Clarke's already been proved wrong by his own words. That apparently isn't enough for dialo (or others in this thread) so, yes, I question Clarke's and Beers' motives. People do that to President Bush and his admin all the time. How many times have we heard that the Iraq war was for oil? Or the Afghan war was to build a pipeline?

OT: why am I not still on your ignore list?

no, I was addressing your contention that because someone now works for Kerry's election that that automatically meant what he had to say was untrue. I was further confused why whether the campaign in question is ahead of the other campaigns or not made any difference....as if only those who work for the front runner would qualify as a conflict of interest.

Then I made the point that Rice and others have the same conflict since Bush is also running, and FURTHER, they have the added incentive to CYA....so I was pointing out that if your concern about motives is good for the goose, its good for the gander.

OT: Who I have or don't have on my ignore list varies greatly over time. I don't normally keep people on it for longer than a week at a time. And then routinely I grant all of them clemency and start with a blank slate again, everyone off the list until they get themselves back on it again. Not really sure why you need to know that, but I've answered you honestly.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you have proof of his motives, incentives? Interesting. Care to lay those out?

Does he have book deal? Check.

Does he make more money if he makes the book scandal-worthy, or would it make more money as a dry political science book? Hmm? Have a guess.

Did his career nosedive? Check.

Was he denied a promotion he wanted? Check.

Was his star rising when the other party was in charge? Check.

Did he wait to go public until after he found out about his personal fortunes in this Administration? Check.

Was his book launch timed to coincide with his testimony? Check.

Is he associated more with the previous administration, or this one? Have a guess.

Are there valid criticisms of that policy, with which he is closely associated, and which was repudiated by the current Administration? Check.

Is there a political campaign going on? Check.

Does he have close contacts in the other party? Check.

Will they be hiring people if they win? Check.

Even if they don't, is his value on the lecture circuit enhanced by being a household name? Have a guess.

Is his ego pumped by being lauded and (as he no doubt sees it) vindicated? Have a guess.




I could go on. It's not "proof," just common sense. Pretending that none of the above exists is just burying your head in the sand. You are very keen to ascribe all kinds of malicious and self-interested motives to anyone with whom you disagree. Why the blindness to the obvious here?

[dialo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Nonsense. In March of 2003 Dean had yet to make his move to the front of the pack. Kerry was still the presumptive frontrunner.

Ah, but that was right before the war, right before Bush was about to find large stocks of WMD in Iraq as the troops are welcomed with rose petals, right before the greatest battle so far in the war on terror, busting up al-qaeda and saving the US from WMD doom.

Or are you saying that Beers also knew that the whole Bush story was BS? Then we could agree on something.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
When people say stuff like this, you usually challenge them to back it up. The only sources I read for this are people who are pretty much obliged to defend the administration no matter what, i.e., Scott McClellan. Wouldn't you rather contradict Clarke on the basis of his actual accusations rather than pass along an ad hominem that doesn't really address the big issue, in any event?

Please note that I'm not actually even expressing any agreement or disagreement with your position on that aforementioned big issue -- it just seems like you're being a tad unfair here. Why just repeat stuff from a political party's sheet of talking points?

He was in the running for Homeland Security #2 position. He didn't get the job. Instead, he was effectively demoted. He retired and wrote a kiss and tell.

Is it so hard to see the sequence? Or do you always put halos on anyone you agree with?

Notice, this guy fell on no swords.

[dialo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First, Democrats do go to work for Republicans, and liberals for conservatives, and Realists for Wilsonians, and all the other stripes in between.

You know what I don't get about you? No matter how many times I point out your major errors, you come up with posts like this that contain 3rd grade level information like it's some grand revelation.

In the case of Clarke, it seems he is not so much invested with a party as with a world view. Plus, he's pissed that he didn't get promoted to Homeland Security's #2 spot. Which raises a question: would a selfless whistleblower wait to see if he is going to get promoted before blowing the whistle, or not? Or is it that his star was rising under Clinton, and started to fall under Bush?

All of these criticisms would be grand and jolly if it was an isolated case or what we was saying was new.

It's not.

The fact is that there has been a steady stream of officials and staff coming from within the Bush admin and all saying the same thing: that the administration is unfocused, driving by politics rather than policy and ignores the real issues. As many have said and DiIulio put so clearly, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm."

'Unprecedented' is a term that sure comes up a lot when former officials and staff discuss what they saw in the administration.

This doesn't even have anything to do with repub or dem. If an a democratic administration was this ****ed up, the content of my posts would be identical.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
... OT: Who I have or don't have on my ignore list varies greatly over time. I don't normally keep people on it for longer than a week at a time. And then routinely I grant all of them clemency...

I've been granted clemency! You should know by now such gestures are lost on this incorrigible recidivist.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Does he have book deal? Check.

Check.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Does he make more money if he makes the book scandal-worthy, or would it make more money as a dry political science book? Hmm? Have a guess.

I'll say scandal-worthy makes more money. Check.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Did his career nosedive? Check.

Actually, there's a great deal of disagreement on that.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Was he denied a promotion he wanted? Check.

proof?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Was his star rising when the other party was in charge? Check.

If you mean he was doing his job, and had the trust of several administrations, sure, check.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Did he wait to go public until after he found out about his personal fortunes in this Administration? Check.

proof?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Was his book launch timed to coincide with his testimony? Check.

False. He wanted to publish his book last November. The White House held on to the manuscript. He has addressed this charge previously.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is he associated more with the previous administration, or this one? Have a guess.

Which previous administration? Bush I? Clinton? Does his "association" with previous administrations determine how you are a better judge of his motives than he is? How, exactly?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are there valid criticisms of that policy, with which he is closely associated, and which was repudiated by the current Administration? Check.

Check. And does he admit those criticisms himself? Check.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is there a political campaign going on? Check.

Check. Are there motives on the Administration's side to discredit critics in an election year? Check.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Does he have close contacts in the other party? Check.

Does he have close contacts with both parties? Check.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Will they be hiring people if they win? Check.

Check. Will Clarke be one of them? He says no. If you have information otherwise, please provide linkage or proof.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Even if they don't, is his value on the lecture circuit enhanced by being a household name? Have a guess.

Check. would his value on the lecture circuit be less valuable if what he was saying was proven untrue? Check.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is his ego pumped by being lauded and (as he no doubt sees it) vindicated? Have a guess.

I'm not qualified to make a guess on what pumps his ego. Are you?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I could go on. It's not "proof," just common sense. Pretending that none of the above exists is just burying your head in the sand. You are very keen to ascribe all kinds of malicious and self-interested motives to anyone with whom you disagree. Why the blindness to the obvious here?

I don't feel this last bit deserves a response.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He was in the running for Homeland Security #2 position. He didn't get the job. Instead, he was effectively demoted. He retired and wrote a kiss and tell.

Is it so hard to see the sequence? Or do you always put halos on anyone you agree with?

Notice, this guy fell on no swords.

Wow. I didn't know I put a "halo" on anybody. Actually, this is my first post in this thread, and I'm not certain why you're saying I agree with Clarke. Of what aspect of his book (which I haven't read, so I don't know whether I agree with it) or testimony are you saying I agree? I'm not sure myself, so it would be helpful to get your advance knowledge.

See, first I form my opinion, then I state my opinion, and then you criticize it, right? Is it so hard to see the sequence?

This controversy appears to have gotten the better of your judgment. Whistle-blowers are almost always disparaged in this fashion ("He was disgrunted.") Maybe Clarke should be, maybe he shouldn't, but your response seems utterly unsupported by anything but unhappiness that the matter is being discussed at all -- which is understandable, given your political leanings, but doesn't substitute for anything even remotely like a fact. This is not typically a characteristic of you arguments on politics, which is why I mention it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
The fact is that there has been a steady stream of officials and staff coming from within the Bush admin and all saying the same thing: that the administration is unfocused, driving by politics rather than policy and ignores the real issues.

Clarke comments made to reporters in August of 2002:

Clark: "The Bush administration - first week in February (2001), 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. They changed the strategy from one of rollback of 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... In the spring, the Bush administration changed � began to change Pakistani policy."

Reporter: "Well, when was that presented to the president?"

Clarke: "Well, the president was briefed throughout this process."

Q: "Yeah, but when was the final September 4th document, was that -- was that presented to the president?"

Clarke: "The document went to the president on September 10th, I think." The day before 9/11.

Q: "So what is your response to the suggestion in TIME magazine of August 2002, August 12th, that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against their 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: me. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important. They kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against the previous team to me."

Jim Angle: "You're saying the Bush administration did not stop anything the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action fivefold? Is that correct?"

Clarke: "All of that is correct."

Q: "Are you saying now that there was only a plan per se presented by the transition team but that there was nothing proactive that they had suggested?"

Clarke: "Well, what I'm saying is there were 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 Uzbekistan policy, that they had been unable to come any conclusions from '98 on. The Bush team came to conclusions."

Q: "Was all of that from '98 or was some of it -- ?"

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

There's also interviews of Condi Rice in 2000 talking of the al Qaeda threat. Sorry, Mr. Clarke. She did know who and what al Qaeda was.

Then we have 9/11 Commission member John Lehman talking about Clarke's 15 hours of closed-door testimony to the commission:

I've watched you labor without fear of favor in the succession of jobs where you really made a difference. So when you agreed to spend as much time as you did with us in -- as you say, 15 hours -- I was very hopeful, and I attended one of those all-day sessions and read the other two transcripts, and I thought they were terrific. I thought, ''Here we have a guy who can be the Rosetta Stone for helping this commission do its job, to help to have the American people grasp what the dysfunctional problems in this government are,'' and I thought, you let the chips fall where they may. But now we have the book, and I hope you're going to tell me as you apologize to the families for all of us who were involved in national security, that this tremendous difference -- and not just in nuance, but in the stories you choose to tell -- is really the result of your editors and your promoters rather than your studied judgment, because it is so different from the whole thrust of your testimony to us.

Oh yeah, and "non-partisan" Clarke's only makes contributions to Democrats.

Seems to me the only stream of officials who are bitching are those that were politely shown the door.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But how does that square with Clarke's 2002 testimony:

(quote lifted from Instapundit).

A 5 fold increase in the covert budget doesn't sound like taking its eye of the al-Queda ball. Especially given that the increase couldn't have taken effect until the first Bush budget the following year. 2001 was still under Clinton's budget.

I think also there has to be an understanding that when Administrations change there is always a period of relative chaos. People have to be hired, confirmed, settle in to offices, get their bearings institutionally, and so on. That's got to be part of the mix if we are going to be realistic.

Right, I acknowledged those factors in my post. That's why I said that one can share Clark's observations about what the administration did or didn't do, but come to different conclusions as to whether it reflected poor judgment, and to what degree. As with most things, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. But as with most threads, people seem to think that it's either "Clarke's a complete liar/Rice would never lie" or vice-versa, or "the administration was all wrong/the administration did nothing wrong." It can be in-between, and usually is.

As for the 5-fold budget figure, I've heard and read all sorts of conflicting reports about budgetary matters, particularly the FBI budget (bear in mind that, by his own admission, Clarke was spinning those statements to put the administration in a positive light, and has said that the administration didn't actually follow through on a number of stated intentions). Also, the idea of increasing a given budget at some point in the future doesn't address Clarke's concern that the administration wasn't paying sufficient attention at that particular time.

It's clear that there's no way to determine whether 9/11 would have been prevented - that's speculation. But one can still make judgments as to whether the administration acted prudently.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Clarke comments made to reporters in August of 2002:
There's also interviews of Condi Rice in 2000 talking of the al Qaeda threat. Sorry, Mr. Clarke. She did know who and what al Qaeda was.

Then we have 9/11 Commission member John Lehman talking about Clarke's 15 hours of closed-door testimony to the commission:

Oh yeah, and "non-partisan" Clarke's only makes contributions to Democrats.

Seems to me the only stream of officials who are bitching are those that were politely shown the door.

Not too surprised he's a shill for the Dems.

[slow moe]

I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.

Clarke's obviously disgruntled. You don't just serve as "terrorist czar" under 4 administrations without beginning to feel like you deserve something special - like maybe, oh I dunno, being named head of Homeland Security instead of Tom Ridge possibly.

Riddle me this though, if the Clinton Administration had no higher priority than terrorism, as Clarke now says, then how come we never heard a peep from Al Gore about it during his 2000 campaign?

[dialo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It can be in-between, and usually is.

Exactly.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Clarke comments made to reporters in August of 2002:

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?

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. I don't get that.

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

THOMPSON: 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.

And Clarke's big point: "It was an important issue, but not an urgent issue."

See above post.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by dialo:
And Clarke's big point: "It was an important issue, but not an urgent issue."

See above post.

http://nationalreview.com/document/r...0403241110.asp

Within 63 days of the 9/11 attacks, Kabul, Afganistan fell to coalition forces. You don't just do in two months what the Soviets couldn't do in eight years by pulling rabbits out your ass, Mr. Clarke.

[dialo]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Within 63 days of the 9/11 attacks, Kabul, Afganistan fell to coalition forces. You don't just do in two months what the Soviets couldn't do in eight years by pulling rabbits out your ass, Mr. Clarke.

What's that? Take Kabul without controlling the rest of the country? Seems to me that's exactly what the Soviets did.

But regardless of the fact that your statement is already wrong in fact, let's just ignore that it was a totally different situation.