March 28, 2004
CLARKE V. CLARKE:
Transcript (NBC MEET THE PRESS, March 28, 2004)
MR. RUSSERT: As you know, the White House has been rather aggressive trying to undercut your credibility. They've released an e-mail which says it's Richard Clarke vs. Richard Clarke. This is now last week on "60 Minutes." "...I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months ... I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." And the White House then says then and they refer to a background briefing you gave reporters which has now been placed on the record. "...the Bush administration decided then, you know, [in late] January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all the lethal covert action findings ... 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. ...[T]hat process which was initiated in the first 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. [T]he principals met at the end of the summer [of 2001], 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 in Afghanistan. And then changed strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the court [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." There you are...Posted by Orrin Judd at March 28, 2004 1:44 PMMR. CLARKE: And it's not inconsistent.
My personal fave from today was when Clark blamed the CIA and FBI for not giving Clinton the information on the Cole bombing to allow for a retaliatory strike.
Going after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice is one thing, but now he's alleged at deliberate deriliction of duty at best, and cover-up at worst, by the nation's two security agencies while Clinton, not Bush was in office -- an action that, by his inference, helped lead to 9/11. The career people at both agencies ought to be having fun right now with that allegation, especially the top staff CIA, since Tenet is still on the job. Both agencies without a doubt had failures before the WTC and Pentagon attacks, but Clarke's allegation of deliberate mendacity goes beyond what anyone has alleged before.
Posted by: John at March 28, 2004 1:59 PMHe seems a self-aggrandizing, delusional buffoon to whom no fact is relevant.
Sort of like most of the left these days.
Posted by: jsmith at March 28, 2004 2:51 PMGuy jumped the shark before his 15 minutes was up.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 28, 2004 8:15 PMPerhaps he is trying to outshine Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Will we next see a photo of Clarke, with saber in hand, standing at the end of an airport runway?
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 28, 2004 8:43 PMClarke is on his way to becoming Scott Ritter.
Posted by: at March 28, 2004 10:41 PMRitter was right.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 29, 2004 8:52 AM"Ritter was right"
Right about what? The young girls he likes so much or the "payments" from good o'l Saddam's payoff slush fund?
That at the time we invaded Iraq, the regime had neither substantial stocks of WMDs or active programs to develop WMDs.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 30, 2004 4:00 PM