Clarke To GOP: Declassify it all

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-29 01:38am

CNN Linky

Clarke apparently wants large swathes of information regarding his actions and those of others relating to terrorism all at once, not peicemeal. This is an angle I hadn't anticipated: The GOP might not declassify all of the discussions, just whatever they can spin at high speed until it seems to point in their direction. Clarke's rebuttal strongly suggests that he has been telling the truth.

I'm sure the Bushites will charge in and insist he's been lying, but this is looking interesting, and if the GOP can't just grab soundbites to spin without letting out more, it could hurt their smear campaign.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-29 01:50am

Declassification of this material is under the control of the administration, IIRC. Hopefully, even the slightest perception that they are releasing only what they think will help them to assassinate Clarke's character will destroy their credibility in the media and further enhance Clarke's reputation. Hoepfully.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-03-29 02:47am

You know, I used to think that all those people who said that Bush let it happen were nuts, but this shit is fucking pointing that way..

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-29 03:14am

kojikun wrote:You know, I used to think that all those people who said that Bush let it happen were nuts, but this shit is fucking pointing that way..

No, this is nowhere near indicating that. Besides, Bush genuinely wants to do what's best for the country (even if he's going about it all the wrong way), and I don't think even he's dumb enough to think that allowing terrorism is best for the nation.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-29 03:29am

kojikun wrote:You know, I used to think that all those people who said that Bush let it happen were nuts, but this shit is fucking pointing that way..

Are you seriously suggesting that you believe that the president of the United States of America sat by and let 3000 people die? No, I don't think so.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-03-29 03:37am

kojikun wrote:You know, I used to think that all those people who said that Bush let it happen were nuts, but this shit is fucking pointing that way..

I Say Again:

Never Attribute to Malice What Can Be Adequately Explained By Incompetence.

911 was avoidable, it wasn't avoided, but it was not done on purpose.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-29 04:00am

Did anyone see Clarke on Meet the Press? Man he kicks some serious ass! I loved it when the interviewer was saying that he released the book just before the commission in order to maximise on profits, or when senators were accusing him of revieling classified information. His responce;

'I finished the book by October, and then had to submit it to the Whitehouse while they checked to make sure that I wasn't revealing any sensitive information. Ergo, whatever is in my book has been approved for public distribution by the Whitehouse. And as for the release date, after the Whitehouse finally approved the book (they sat on it for moths, Clarke wanted it to be ready for Christmas), it went to my publishers and they, and only they, had control on when it would be released.'

Man that guy kicks so much serious ass. The interviewer (credit to him) tried to trip him up a few times, and Clarke shot him down like it was no body's buissines!

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-03-29 04:02am

Well, okay he let it happen because he's a gimp. He still let it happen. u.u

What a tool.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-29 04:42am

Condie Wont Testify

It looks like the GOP is okay with declassifying intelligence to destroy Clarke's credibility, but they won't allow Condi to rebutt the testimony, except on their terms and without directed questions that she can't sidestep. Does anyone else smell bullshit in the air?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-03-29 09:05am

The Kernel wrote:It looks like the GOP is okay with declassifying intelligence to destroy Clarke's credibility, but they won't allow Condi to rebutt the testimony, except on their terms and without directed questions that she can't sidestep. Does anyone else smell bullshit in the air?

Yes.

A few things that grabbed my attention:

The article wrote:Rice acknowledged Sunday that Bush had asked Clarke at a meeting on the day after Sept. 11 to find out if Iraq had been involved in the terror attacks.

The president, she said, was not trying to bully Clarke or force him to give a particular answer.

"This was a country with which we'd been to war a couple of times, it was firing at our airplanes in the no-fly zone. It made perfectly good sense to ask about Iraq," Rice said on CBS.

Emphasis mine.

Now, I seem to remember only ONE war in Iraq. Or am I missing out on some history here? Further I also remember the USA being friends to Iraq when Iran were the bad guys. This is a country with which the US had been to war "a couple of times"? Or am I missing out on something here?

The article wrote:Told there have been more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11 than before it, she replied: "I think that's the wrong way to look at it."

Sorry, I just couldn't help but find that funny. In a sad way.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-29 09:10am

I think that Dr (since when, and doctor in what?) Rice is refering to the times that the US had to enforce the no-fly zone as part of her 'couple of times'.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-29 09:15am

I think she was refering to Desert Fox.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-29 09:38am

Crown wrote: (since when, and doctor in what?

)

She recieved her Ph.D. in 1981 from the University of Denver in International Affairs. She was also a university professor at Stanford for six years before joining the Bush cabinet.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-29 10:36am

The Kernel wrote:
Crown wrote: (since when, and doctor in what?
)

She recieved her Ph.D. in 1981 from the University of Denver in International Affairs. She was also a university professor at Stanford for six years before joining the Bush cabinet.

International affairs eh?

*snickers*

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-29 12:27pm

Calling for the declassification of 'everything' means either that Clarke is confident that the evidence backs him up 100% or he knows that a lot of the material is so sensitive that it cannot be declassified and he's trying to make the Bushies appear even worse.

Or maybe I'm just too cynical.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-29 07:06pm

Calling for the declassification of 'everything' means either that Clarke is confident that the evidence backs him up 100% or he knows that a lot of the material is so sensitive that it cannot be declassified and he's trying to make the Bushies appear even worse.

That's because no President is eager to put their National Security Adviser before Congress. Condoleeza Rice has the perrogative - even the duty - to avoid giving testimony on sensitive topics. But, as you hint, that stance is only going to be unpopular as people try to find out what happened, exactly.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-03-29 07:45pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Calling for the declassification of 'everything' means either that Clarke is confident that the evidence backs him up 100% or he knows that a lot of the material is so sensitive that it cannot be declassified and he's trying to make the Bushies appear even worse.
That's because no President is eager to put their National Security Adviser before Congress. Condoleeza Rice has the perrogative - even the duty - to avoid giving testimony on sensitive topics. But, as you hint, that stance is only going to be unpopular as people try to find out what happened, exactly.

Like topics that can get her boss Shrub fired? ^_~

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-29 08:17pm

Axis Kast wrote: That's because no President is eager to put their National Security Adviser before Congress. Condoleeza Rice has the perrogative - even the duty - to avoid giving testimony on sensitive topics. But, as you hint, that stance is only going to be unpopular as people try to find out what happened, exactly.

A good point, but if you consider that they are trying to selectively declassify certain things in order to discredit Clarke, then you must realize that they can't fall back on national security staff being above sworn testimony. Besides, Condi is talking about the issue in the public spotlight, there is no reason she can't do the same under oath in front of the 9/11 comittee.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-03-29 08:45pm

The Kernel wrote:
Axis Kast wrote: That's because no President is eager to put their National Security Adviser before Congress. Condoleeza Rice has the perrogative - even the duty - to avoid giving testimony on sensitive topics. But, as you hint, that stance is only going to be unpopular as people try to find out what happened, exactly.
A good point, but if you consider that they are trying to selectively declassify certain things in order to discredit Clarke, then you must realize that they can't fall back on national security staff being above sworn testimony. Besides, Condi is talking about the issue in the public spotlight, there is no reason she can't do the same under oath in front of the 9/11 comittee.

Clarke knew his game plan before he went public. He had to - his moves since going public are too well-planned for him to be just plain reacting. I think he knew exactly what the GOP's likely reaction would be, to what degree, and what they'd likely pull out against him. Now the GOP is forced to declassify either the whole thing or nothing, because if they declassify only the parts that they can spin to make him look bad, they're going to look like they're covering their asses, which is the last thing they want.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-29 10:03pm

Like topics that can get her boss Shrub fired? ^_~

Yes and no. One can certainly imagine that Bush isn't eager to have the pre-September 11th warning messages rehashed at the highest levels of government (who would be?). Then again, to be fair, Rice shouldn't be up before Congress spilling all the beans no matter what.

A good point, but if you consider that they are trying to selectively declassify certain things in order to discredit Clarke, then you must realize that they can't fall back on national security staff being above sworn testimony. Besides, Condi is talking about the issue in the public spotlight, there is no reason she can't do the same under oath in front of the 9/11 comittee.

Condi isn't talking on 60 Minutes about the kind of data a Congressional panel would demand. You're right that it makes Bush look terrible, but it's really a Catch 22.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-29 10:08pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Like topics that can get her boss Shrub fired? ^_~
Yes and no. One can certainly imagine that Bush isn't eager to have the pre-September 11th warning messages rehashed at the highest levels of government (who would be?). Then again, to be fair, Rice shouldn't be up before Congress spilling all the beans no matter what.

And why, exactly, is this so? Because her boss would look bad for his mistakes?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-29 10:09pm

Axis Kast wrote: Condi isn't talking on 60 Minutes about the kind of data a Congressional panel would demand. You're right that it makes Bush look terrible, but it's really a Catch 22.

It's worse then that because they are willing to declassify just enough info to spin and make Clarke look bad, but they won't allow Condie to be questioned about the issue under oath. There are ways to question her about the issue without compromising national security (after all, they are interested in pre-9/11 info about general terrorism policy that has no doubt been completely overhauled anyways).

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-29 10:46pm

And why, exactly, is this so? Because her boss would look bad for his mistakes?

It's feasible, certainly. Every politician values non-disclosure. And that's especially true of presidents.

But, as I've said before, Condi has no place as a professional intelligence chief of divulging everything before Congress. And that's true of any NSA or CIA head.

Although it's a poor analogy for the sake of connotation, Richard Nixon's case is functionally instructive.

Nixon didn't want his team subject to outside interference - and rightfully so. But when it came down to the wire, and accusations were thrown, he, like Bush, came to look as if he was effecting some sort of cover-up. Now rationally, we know that Bush certainly didn't let 9/11 happen. We also know that the messages on 9/11 took a long while to percolate, and that the CIA and FBI are plagued by bureaucratic inefficiency. Yet that won't help Bush.

It's worse then that because they are willing to declassify just enough info to spin and make Clarke look bad, but they won't allow Condie to be questioned about the issue under oath. There are ways to question her about the issue without compromising national security (after all, they are interested in pre-9/11 info about general terrorism policy that has no doubt been completely overhauled anyways).

You're still dealing with different types of information. What you saw on 60 Minutes is still very different from what the Congress could ask Condi once she goes before them.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-29 10:57pm

Axis Kast wrote:
And why, exactly, is this so? Because her boss would look bad for his mistakes?
It's feasible, certainly. Every politician values non-disclosure. And that's especially true of presidents.

But, as I've said before, Condi has no place as a professional intelligence chief of divulging everything before Congress. And that's true of any NSA or CIA head.

Yes, because we know the best way to encourage abuse of power is to remove checks and balances.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-03-30 12:52am

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Never Attribute to Malice What Can Be Adequately Explained By Incompetence.

You always state this as if its some sort of law of nature; its completely unfounded considering the VAST number of cases in human history where cruelty was diliberatly caused not by incompetence, but by malice, religous fanaticism, or the persuit of gain.

Either back up your arbitrary assertion with evidence or henceforth it will be regarded as, and treated as, bullshit.