Coulter rejects Clarke charges

[Patrick M]

This is a fun read.

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/032404p.htm

ARE YOU sitting down? Another ex-government official who was fired or demoted by Bush has written a book that ... is critical of Bush! Eureka! The latest offering is Richard Clarke's new CBS-Viacom book, "Against All Enemies," which gets only a 35 on "rate a record" because the words don't make sense and you can't dance to it.

As long as we're investigating everything, how about investigating why some loser no one has ever heard of is getting so much press coverage for yet another "tell-all" book attacking the Bush administration?

When an FBI agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever."

"Larry King Live" and NBC's "Dateline" abruptly canceled their scheduled interviews with Aldrich. Aldrich was mentioned on fewer than a dozen TV shows during the entire year of his book's release -- many with headlines like this one on CNN: "Even Conservatives Back Away From Aldrich's Book." That's almost as much TV as Lewinsky mouthpiece William Ginsburg did before breakfast on an average day. (Let's take a moment here to imagine the indignity of being known as "Monica Lewinsky's mouthpiece.")

But a "tell-all" book that attacks the Bush administration gets the author interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" (two segments), CNN's "American Morning" and ABC's "Good Morning America" -– with an "analysis" by George Stephanopoulos, no less. In the first few days of its release, Clarke's book was hyped on more than 200 TV shows.

In contrast to Aldrich's book, which was vindicated with a whoop just a few years later when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, many of Clarke's allegations were disproved within days of the book's release. Clarke claims, for example, that in early 2001, when he told President Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice about al-Qaida, her "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." (If only she used botox like Sen. Kerry!)

Sean Hannity has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization.

But in deference to our liberal friends, let's leave aside the facts for now. A few months before Clarke was interpreting Dr. Rice's "facial expression," al-Qaida had bombed the USS Cole. Two years before that, al-Qaida bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In fact, al-Qaida or their allies had been responsible for a half dozen attacks on U.S. interests since Clinton had become president. (Paper-pusher Clarke was doing one heck of a job, wasn't he?) In the year 2000 alone, Lexis-Nexis lists 280 items mentioning al-Qaida.

By the end of 2000, anyone who read the paper had heard of al-Qaida. It is literally insane to imagine that Condoleezza Rice had not. For Pete's sake, even The New York Times knew about al-Qaida.

Rice had been a political science professor at Stanford University, a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies. She had written three books and numerous articles on foreign policy. She worked for the first Bush administration in a variety of national security positions.

All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida."

Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us.

Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education? Or did he think Dr. Rice was cleaning the Old Executive Office Building at night before the president chose her -- not him -- to be national security adviser? If a Republican ever claimed the "facial expression" on Maxine Waters -- a woman whose face is no stranger to confusion or befuddlement -- left the "impression" that she didn't understand quantum physics, he'd be in prison for committing a hate crime.

As we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag -- you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?"

[Ron]

Gary Aldrich vs. Richard Clark. A sex tell-all vs. an expose explaining why America's currently at war. Hmmm. Tough call. And what's that you say? The latter's getting all the attention? Score two points [at last] for American media!

[lukpac]

It's amazing that with all that hot air, she manages to say next to nothing.

[Rspaight]

The fact that she has a following indicates the bottomless gullbility of the American public. That entire piece barely nudges the truth-o-meter.

It would take hours to dissect everything that's wrong with that column (that's Coulter's one talent -- the ability to put ten pounds of shit into a five-pound bag), but my favorite is this description of Clarke:

some loser no one has ever heard of

followed by a lengthy tirade about how ludicrous it was to imply that Rice wasn't up on al Qaeda. (Which *was* pretty hyperbolic, in all fairness. She knew about al Qaeda, she just didn't understand why Clarke was so worried about them.)

Hey, Ann -- the implication that you'd "never heard of" Richard Clarke is just as insulting. Shut the hell up.

Ryan

[Xenu]

I'm more confused by the veritable Zappa-ism that pops up:

"which gets only a 35 on "rate a record" because the words don't make sense and you can't dance to it."


But yeah. "Some guy nobody's ever heard of?" Jesus.

[Bennett Cerf]

In contrast to Aldrich's book, which was vindicated with a whoop just a few years later when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, many of Clarke's allegations were disproved within days of the book's release. Clarke claims, for example, that in early 2001, when he told President Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice about al-Qaida, her "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before."

She says "many" of Clarke's allegations have been disproved, and then gives a single example of Clarke misreading Rice's facial expression.

Have ANY of Clarke's other allegations truly been disputed (let alone disproved)?

[Rspaight]

Yes -- the only problem is every member of the administration has disputed them in contradictory (if not mutually exclusive) ways. Cheney says Clarke was out of the loop, Rice says he was running the show, Rummy says he was at all the meetings, Rice says he never came to meetings, some people say the Bush "Tie this to Iraq" discussion never happened, others say Bush was looking for evidence *against* Iraq's involvement to counter Rummy and Wolfie's obsession with invading (!!!), and so on and so on.

The only thing we know for sure is that Clarke has them scared witless.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

Along those lines, we have this.

For those keeping score at home, here's the rundown to date:

- Naming of Valerie Plame (a felony and national security breach) in order to damage Joseph Wilson - OK!

- Naming the anonymous source who named Valerie Plame at the behest of law enforcement officials - NOT OK!

- Naming Clarke as the anonymous source of the 2002 backgrounder at the behest of Fox News - OK!

- Having presidential aide (Rice) give sworn public testimony - NOT OK!

- Releasing private testimony of presidential aide (Clarke) - OK!

- Releasing attendees of Cheney's energy policy meetings - NOT OK!

- Releasing confidential e-mails to discredit Clarke - OK!

- Stealing Democratic strategy memos - OK!

The Republicans sure have a... flexible approach to confidentiality.

Republicans seek to declassify old Clarke testimony
Friday, March 26, 2004 Posted: 7:41 PM EST (0041 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Leading congressional Republicans announced plans Friday to seek declassification of 2-year-old testimony from Richard Clarke, hoping to show discrepancies between his recent criticisms of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies with flattering statements he made as a White House aide.

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.

The Tennessee Republican and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, want Clarke's July 2002 testimony before the joint House and Senate intelligence inquiry into the September 11, 2001, attacks available publicly.

Frist said Clarke, appearing before the joint committee then as a White House counterterrorism adviser, was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration" and told the committee the White House had actively sought to address the al Qaeda threat.

Clarke did not respond to multiple telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment Friday.

Republicans hope to compare Clarke's 2002 testimony to his testimony this week before a separate bipartisan commission investigating the attacks. "Your government failed you," Clarke told the presidentially appointed panel and an audience of victims' families.

The declassification requests marked the latest turn in a Republican counterattack against Clarke, who has leveled his criticism against Bush in a new book, "Against All Enemies," as well as in interviews and this week's sworn testimony.

The allegations against Clarke could linger for weeks as the declassification request winds through the appropriate agencies to ensure sensitive national security information isn't revealed. Often most protected are the "sources and methods" of gathering intelligence.

House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss, R-Florida, who initiated the declassification request this week, said he feels an obligation to make sure Congress' 810-page report, released publicly in 2003, isn't "contaminated by this new revelation" from Clarke.

Frist made clear Friday that he isn't accusing Clarke of perjury; Goss said he's requested the declassification, a sometimes lengthy process, in case a need for public hearings or other disclosure arises.

"We have to dig through this," Goss said, "not only for the continued accuracy and utility of the joint 9-11 report, but now we have this further question: Does this change things, or is it part of a book-selling tour?"

Two sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that in his testimony two years ago, Clarke depicted the Bush administration as far more active in grappling with the threat of al Qaeda than his testimony on Wednesday outlined.

It was not clear whether he also testified two years ago -- as he did this week -- that some senior administration officials almost immediately called for strikes against Iraq in response to the September 11 strikes.

Former Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, who worked with Goss on the inquiry, supported the declassification of Clarke's testimony in its entirety and suggested the administration open the door even wider to include documents -- including Clarke's January 2002 al Qaeda plan -- that could help resolve issues in dispute.

"To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week," Graham said.

California Rep. Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also wants to see more information disclosed, including 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's report addressing the involvement of a foreign government in supporting some of the 19 hijackers -- an item of dispute with the Bush administration.

"This is selective declassification, in my view, and it is all about discrediting an administration critic," Harman said.

In his testimony this week, 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 Bush took office and the September 11 attacks.

In a sharply worded speech, Frist said that Clarke himself was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center, a bombing in an underground parking garage in 1993 that killed six people.

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."

[lukpac]

I think Kerry just needs to run this as a campaign ad:

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.ph ... _7131.html

[Rspaight]

Perfect.

Ryan

[TSmithPage]

Ann Coulter is a bitch. I know it doesn't add much to this debate, but I just feel better saying it...

[czeskleba]

Isn't that just like a liberal?

That's my favorite part. It's gotten to the point where the term liberal doesn't even have any political meaning anymore. It's simply used as an insulting term for someone who dares disagree with or criticize Bush. Clarke is a registered Republican, served under Reagan and Bush Sr, and voted Bush Jr. in 2000. He's a "liberal"?

[lukpac]

That's my favorite part. It's gotten to the point where the term liberal doesn't even have any political meaning anymore. It's simply used as an insulting term for someone who dares disagree with or criticize Bush. Clarke is a registered Republican, served under Reagan and Bush Sr, and voted Bush Jr. in 2000. He's a "liberal"?

No, but FYI, he voted for Gore in 2000, at least according to the Washington Post:

Rice Defends Refusal To Testify

Clarke said he voted for Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election but declined to say whether he would support Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the presumed Democratic nominee, this year.

The bigger issue is not who he voted for, but that somehow all "liberals" do the same thing...