GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony

[adios]

Looks like GOP congressman are looking into the possibility of bringing purjury charges against Clarke:

GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040326/ap_on_go_co/clarke_congress_4)

GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony
2 hours, 42 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.

Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath — either in 2002 or this week — when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the war on terror.


"Until you have him under oath both times you don't know," Frist said.


One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the request had come from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee.


The request was the latest evidence of a counterattack against Clarke, who has criticized Bush both in a new book and in his appearance before the bipartisan commission on Wednesday.


In his testimony, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks.


Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) had undermined the war on terror.


The request for declassification applies to Clarke's appearance in July 2002 before a meeting of the intelligence committees of both the House and Senate.


No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA (news - web sites) and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public.


Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarke's testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.


Without mentioning the congressional Republicans' effort, White House spokesman Scott McClellan continued the administration's criticism of Clarke on Friday.


"With every new assertion he makes, every revision of his past comments, he only further undermines his credibility," McClellan told reporters.


Asked about Bush's personal reaction to the criticism from a former White House aide, McClellan said, "Any time someone takes a serious issue like this and revises history it's disappointing."

[mosch]

This is completely and utterly unsurprising. The GOP is trying to put Clarke on the defensive, rather than address the allegations that he puts forth in his book.

It's this sort of technique that makes me certain that the USA could not be created again, today. The United States was founded on the ideas of free discussion and debate. Today, debate is shunned in favor of personal attack, with politicians who would rather destroy a man's life than admit that there may have been a mistake.

[adios]

If interested here's a NY Time story that is a little more in depth. Apparently Bob Graham is ok with it:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who was co-chairman of Congress' inquiry into 9/11, said that he supported Mr. Frist's request, adding, "To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week."

I think Senator Frist has some legitimate points here though:

In his denunciation of Mr. Clarke today, Senator Frist took note of the timing.

"I am troubled by these charges," Dr. Frist said. "I am equally troubled that someone would sell a book, trading on their former service as a government insider with access to our nation's most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering that this nation endured on Sept. 11, 2001."

As for Mr. Clarke's more recent testimony, Mr. Frist said, "If he has manufactured these charges for profit and political gain, he is a shame to this government."

The majority leader said that it was clear that Mr. Clarke and his publisher had timed his book release's for maximum effect, to coincide with the 9/11 commission hearings.

"I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering," Senator Frist said. As for Mr. Clarke's dramatic apology to the nation for not having prevented the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Frist dismissed it as "theatrical" and an act of "supreme arrogance and manipulation."

Senator Frist said Mr. Clarke's period of service was marked by the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993; the 1996 attack on United States Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 attacks on two American embassies in Africa; and the 2000 attack on the warship Cole

I don't quite understand how in 8 years Clinton, with Clarke working for him, allowed al Qaeda to flourish and make repeated attacks against the US and also allowed al Qaeda to establish terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Clarke can say that Clinton had a sense of urgency (or words to that effect) in dealing with al Qaeda. I did here Dick Morris, a former Clinton advisor, state that in Clinton's second term the impeachment and the Lewinsky affair inhibited his actions. I think that's a lame excuse and not valid as well. I do find it interesting though that the Republicans are reacting to this so strongly and yeah if it's a matter shooting the messenger then that isn't a good thing. However, I do think part of it is trying to discern if the messenger is speaking with a forked tongue.

Senate Leader Assails Clarke, Asks to See Past Testimony (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/politics/26CND-PANE.html?hp)

Senate Leader Assails Clarke, Asks to See Past Testimony
By DAVID STOUT

Published: March 26, 2004


ASHINGTON, March 26 — The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, today accused a former counterterrorism official of exploiting Sept. 11, 2001, and the senator wants to compare the official's recent public testimony critical of the Bush administration with secret testimony he gave two years ago while working for President Bush.

Dr. Frist said it was "awesomely self-serving" of the former official, Richard A. Clarke, to say that President Bush had paid too little attention to his warnings about the dangers posed by Al Qaeda terrorists.

Far from accepting his own responsibility for any failures before the attacks, Mr. Clarke was "consumed by the desire to dodge any blame" even as rescuers were sifting through the rubble of the World Trade Center, Dr. Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Dr. Frist said he would seek to declassify testimony that Mr. Clarke gave in July 2002 in closed meetings of the intelligence committees of both the Senate and the House. The majority leader said he wanted to compare that testimony with Mr. Clarke's testimony this week before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a 10-member, independent, bipartisan panel investigating 9/11.

Perhaps, Dr. Frist said, inconsistencies will be found. "Until you have him under oath both times, you don't know," the Tennessee Republican said.

Several House Republican aides said Dr. Frist made his speech at the request of Representative Porter Goss, the Florida Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee and thus presumably knows what Mr. Clarke said in his closed testimony, rather than at the direct request of the White House.

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who was co-chairman of Congress' inquiry into 9/11, said that he supported Mr. Frist's request, adding, "To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week."

As Dr. Frist was speaking in Washington, President Bush was in Albuquerque, N.M., speaking about home ownership. Mr. Bush lost New Mexico to Al Gore in 2000 by fewer than 400 votes out of some 570,000 cast.

Mr. Bush and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, had sought to put focus on economic issues today.

In New Mexico, Mr. Bush said again that lower taxes were crucial to prosperity because they let Americans keep more of their money, and thus drove the economic engine. In Detroit, Mr. Kerry proposed cuts in corporate taxes but also the elimination of loopholes that push American jobs overseas.

But Dr. Frist's attack on Mr. Clarke's credibility and character overshadowed the candidates' talk about the economy and underscored the concern that Republicans feel over Mr. Clarke's assertions and his sudden fame, considering that President Bush is running for re-election in large part on his record as commander in chief in a worldwide battle against terrorism.

Before and after Mr. Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 commission this week, White House aides mounted a concerted effort to undermine his credibility, prompting the Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, to accuse the White House of waging an unseemly personal attack.

Mr. Clarke, who was a counterterrorism adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as to President Bush, told the bipartisan 9/11 commission that President Clinton had put terrorism at the top of his agenda, while Mr. Bush and his top aides had not.

In addition to being slow to recognize the peril of Al Qaeda, President Bush and his top aides seemed preoccupied with finding a link between the Sept. 11 attacks and Iraq, Mr. Clarke said, as if they had determined to go to war against Saddam Hussein and needed a pretext. He has further said that far from aiding the battle against terrorism, the campaign in Iraq has hampered it by consuming resources that could have been better used in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his Qaeda followers.

Mr. Clarke leveled those accusations not only before the 9/11 commission but in several television appearances, beginning with the CBS television program "60 Minutes" last Sunday, the eve of publication of his book.

In his denunciation of Mr. Clarke today, Senator Frist took note of the timing.

"I am troubled by these charges," Dr. Frist said. "I am equally troubled that someone would sell a book, trading on their former service as a government insider with access to our nation's most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering that this nation endured on Sept. 11, 2001."

As for Mr. Clarke's more recent testimony, Mr. Frist said, "If he has manufactured these charges for profit and political gain, he is a shame to this government."

The majority leader said that it was clear that Mr. Clarke and his publisher had timed his book release's for maximum effect, to coincide with the 9/11 commission hearings.

"I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering," Senator Frist said. As for Mr. Clarke's dramatic apology to the nation for not having prevented the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Frist dismissed it as "theatrical" and an act of "supreme arrogance and manipulation."

Senator Frist said Mr. Clarke's period of service was marked by the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993; the 1996 attack on United States Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 attacks on two American embassies in Africa; and the 2000 attack on the warship Cole.

"The only common denominator throughout these 10 years of unanswered attacks was Mr. Clarke himself," Dr. Frist said, "a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and shift blame."

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
If interested here's a NY Time story that is a little more in depth. Apparently Bob Graham is ok with it:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who was co-chairman of Congress' inquiry into 9/11, said that he supported Mr. Frist's request, adding, "To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week."

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that if Sen Graham doesn't have a problem with it, this could greatly backfire on the republicans.

This seems pretty dastardly on the part of the repbulicans. I agree with Mosch, they seem to be diverting attention to Clarke and not the issues Clarke raised.

[ QUOTE ]
"I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering," Senator Frist said. As for Mr. Clarke's dramatic apology to the nation for not having prevented the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Frist dismissed it as "theatrical" and an act of "supreme arrogance and manipulation."

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, did he just say that? The family members of 9/11 victims thanked him for his apology.

[ QUOTE ]
I do find it interesting though that the Republicans are reacting to this so strongly and yeah if it's a matter shooting the messenger then that isn't a good thing. However, I do think part of it is trying to discern if the messenger is speaking with a forked tongue

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they are hoping for the latter, and are trying as hard as they can to find proof that Clarke is lying. They haven't tried this hard to find proof since Iraq, and we all know how that has shapped up.

[ QUOTE ]
"The only common denominator throughout these 10 years of unanswered attacks was Mr. Clarke himself," Dr. Frist said, "a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and shift blame."

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmmm... I thought the problem was an intellegence failure by the CIA and the FBI, and their inability to work together.

I have lost a lot of respect for Bill Frist.

[GWB]

I don't think you ever had much respect for Bill Frist.

He is trying to help the 9/11 victims and his country, while Clarke is trying to cash in on book sales. I know who I respect.

W

[ThaSaltCracka]

you truely are the dumbest man in America.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you ever had much respect for Bill Frist.


[/ QUOTE ]
When Bill Frist took over for Trent Lott, I thought, okay he looks like a good guy, someone who looked like he was going to get things done. Instead its nowapparent that he is a puppet for the admin. Trent Lott atleast had his own opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
He is trying to help the 9/11 victims and his country

[/ QUOTE ]
By discrediting the highest ranking former member of the admin that criticized bush and his policies? who is helping who here?