Sorry, but Fox News breached no promises. According to the reporter Jim Angle, and confirmed by the administration, Fox asked and was given permission by the White House
But not by Clarke. Oh well, who cares really. I don't.
So Clarke seems to be admitting that he lied at least in 2002.
Did he? "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to play down the negative aspects," Clarke said, adding, "When one is a special assistant to the president, one is asked to do that sort of thing. I've done it for several presidents."
Spin, like what Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley are doing now when they're defending the president.
He didn't consider this 'dangerous" lack of attention by the President objectionable enough to resign?
Actually he did. In the Spring of 2001 when Clarke realized that the Bush Admin was not going to pay (in Clarke's opinion) sufficient attention to the Al Qaeda threat, he requested and was approved for a transfer to cybersecurity, which was to take effect in October 2001. His transfer was delayed because of 9/11. You'd know this if you had read his book.
And judging by comments made yesterday by John Lehman, committee member, Clarke's testimony on television seem to contradict his statements made in private testimony.
Then Lehman should release the secret testimony and allow us to jduge for ourselves.
But
here is the exchange.
John Lehman, Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan and a former colleague of Clarke's, came out not just swaggering but swinging. The 16 hours of classified testimony that Clarke gave to the commission—and the six hours he testified before the joint congressional inquiry on 9/11—were nothing like what's in the book. There is, Lehman said, "a tremendous difference, and not just in nuance," adding, "You've got a real credibility problem!" You look like "an active partisan selling a book."
Clarke began with a playful shuffle. "Thank you, John," he said, to laughter. First, he denied that he's campaigning for John Kerry and swore, under oath, that he would not take a job in a Kerry administration if there is one. Then he admitted there was a difference between his earlier testimony and his book. "There's a very good reason for that," he went on. "In the 15 hours of testimony, nobody asked me what I thought of the president's invasion of Iraq." The heart of his book's attacks surrounds the war. "By invading Iraq," he said, taking full advantage of Lehman's opening, "the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terror." End of response. Lehman said nothing.
Clarke now also states that there has never been any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda nor has there ever been any evidence of any connection.
That's is NOT what he said either in his testimony or in his book. You might want to read his book.
I think I will save my money for better uses than putting it into the pocket of a blatent lier [sic].
(Maybe buy a good dictionary?)
Most of the serious allegations that Clarke makes in his book ...
That would be that book that you haven't read, right? In other words, you have no personal knowledge of "most of the serious allegations that Clarke makes in his book."
Is Clarke a registered Republican? I had heard this on the radio the other day, but I am glad that you raise the question. Here is how Clarke answered the question.
Joe Conason - “Is it true that you're a registered Republican, as someone told me yesterday?â€
Richard Clarke - “Well, I vote in Virginia, and you can't register as a Republican or a Democrat in Virginia.* The only way that anybody ever knows your party affiliation in Virginia is when you vote in a primary, because you have to ask for either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. And in the year 2000, I voted in the Republican presidential primary. That's the only record in the state of Virginia of my interest or allegiance. †-- Joe Conason interview with Richard Clarke, Salon, 3/24/04
* This is correct. Virginia does not register voters by party affiliation.
The next question becomes, can we verify that he voted in the GOP primary? Not sure about Virginia, but in Texas it is a matter a public record which party's primary one voted in. Maybe someone should go check it out in whichever county he lives in.
As far as his donations go, perhaps you can provide evidence?
In the end, all of it is really immaterial. Democrat, Republican. Who cares? Both parties are infested with rats. I vote in GOP primaries, donate money to local GOP candidates. Does that mean that my arguments are any more or less credible? No. Denouncing Clarke as some kind of "hero of the left" is just another desparate way to avoid having to engage his arguments. Clarke is a hawk, make no mistake about it. His beef with the Clinton and Bush administrations is that they did NOT pursue Al Qaeda aggressively enough.
