Most of you will want to skip this. It's my response to a comment someone left about my post on Clarke that is way, way too long to fit in the comments section (1000 character limit).
[original comment]
Clarke is a liar pal. Here's a link to an interview transcript from 2002.... [Jason here: I suggest reading the interview so you can understand the poster's position. He has a reasonable point. ]
I especially like the part where Clarke says the Bush administration did NOT stop anything put in place by the Clinton administration to fight Al Qaeda, and in fact increased the funding to covert ops for that function by 5 times. He said that. What do you say to this?
ChumBucket | Email | Homepage | 03.28.04 - 10:18 pm | #
[my response]
James R. Thompson, one of the members of the 9-11 commission and no friend of Clarke, asked him about this 2002 interview. I included the exchange below. You can decide for yourself whether Clarke adequately addresses the purported discrepancies between his comments now and his comments in the background interview for the press.
Before I get to that though, a few comments.
Let's say someone accuses you of not having a chum bucket. He is lying, but even the suggestion that you don't have a chum bucket is so damaging that you have to prove this guy is lying. Do you:
a) Call him a liar.
b) Show people your chum bucket.
c) Both a and b.
I would argue that either b or c is the strongest way to refute this person's claims. If all you did is call him a liar, it would be your word against his, and people would wonder, "Why doesn't he just end this issue by showing people his chum bucket?"
Even if you think Clarke's claims are untrue, one would have to admit that the Bush administration's response has been almost all option 'a'. The evidence refuting his claims have been scanty and weak (e.g. this press briefing, in my opinion). Which is unusual, because Clarke's main claims are very easy to disprove, if the evidence exists. And there should be a lot of it, in the form of meeting minutes, policy papers, and classified material that can safely be declassified for the good of the country (e.g. Clarke's formerly classified press briefing).
Clarke may be wrong and Bush may have nothing to hide. But considering that Bush originally opposed the formation of the 9-11 commission, then opposed giving the commission a two-month extension, the administration is attacking Clarke's character instead of the meat of his argument, Condolezza Rice still refuses to testify under oath, and Clarke wants all his private testimony and e-mail exchanges with his former boss made public, Bush is at least creating the appearance of trying to cover up something.
The exchange with Thompson and Clarke:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment