Bush Team Reveals Clarke as Formerly Anonymous Defender of White House

[Manwithchildeyes]

Policies

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGATE5WZ7SD.html

Mar 24, 2004

Bush Team Reveals Clarke as Formerly Anonymous Defender of White House Policies By Scott Lindlaw Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, intensifying its effort to discredit Richard Clarke, took the unusual step Wednesday of revealing he was the anonymous official who had defended President Bush's anti-terrorism strategy in August 2002. In a new book, Clarke accuses the administration of giving too little attention to the threat posed by al-Qaida until the day of the Sept. 11 attacks. But in the 2002 discussion with reporters, Clarke outlined a multi-pronged approach for confronting al-Qaida that he said the White House had developed over several months leading up to the attacks.

"Dick Clarke, in his own words, provides a point-by-point rebuttal of what he now asserts," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "This shatters the cornerstone of Mr. Clarke's assertions."

Clarke was a top counterterrorism official for both the Clinton and Bush administrations. He said in the 2002 briefing that President Clinton had a strategy for tackling al-Qaida, but that it languished for years because that administration could not resolve several thorny issues.

Bush officials reviewed those policies when they came into office, and decided to "increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action fivefold, to go after al-Qaida," Clarke said in 2002.

Bush embraced a plan for the "rapid elimination" of al-Qaida, shifting from the Clinton administration's policy of seeking to "roll back" the threat over several years, Clarke said at that earlier briefing.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Clarke just explained this on LK Live

He was asked to spin things as positively as possible. He refused to lie, and said if he'd criticized the Pres he would have been fired.

He is kicking you know what!

[Manwithchildeyes]

4. Were his statement in 2002 true or false?

If true then it rubs against today's statements. Getting fired has nothing to do with telling the truth. Either 2002 is false and today is true or 2002 is true and today is false. Which is it?

[nankerphelge]

6. wrong

I don't see the conflict; he's said that in 2002 he was still in the administration and couldn't very well say what he's been saying. He was asked to accentuate the positive.

[Manwithchildeyes]

10. He could have told the truth in 2002

Nobody is forced to lie.

[TinaTyson]

13. What lie is it that you think he told?

"increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action fivefold, to go after al-Qaida,"

Sure they increased it. But it wasn't to go after al-Qaida. It is a little white lie he had to tell as part of his job for Bush. Who is to say where it really went.

Get it?

[Robbien]

14. You are trying really hard to get us to believe GOP spin

Why?

[girl gone mad]

15. In his own words:

In the second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the August 2002 press briefing. "You intended to mislead the press?" he asked, perhaps hoping to pound a wedge between the media and their new superstar.

"There's a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about," Clarke replied. Someone in his position had three choices. He could have resigned, but he had important work yet to do. He could have lied, but nobody told him to do that, and he wouldn't have in any case. "The third choice," he said, "is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts. That's what I did."

Well, Thompson asked in a bruised tone, is there one set of moral rules for special assistants to the White House and another set for everybody else?

"It's not a question of morality at all," Clarke replied. "It's a question of politics." The crowd applauded fiercely. To invoke another sports metaphor: Game, set, and match.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097750/

[nankerphelge]

9. He's holding out pretty well...

seeing as how they've brought everyone out of the barn to try to run him down.

[rustydog]

2. Has anyone noticed that the White House Attack Dogs

are not disputing Clarke's claims? They are trying to assassinate his character and veracity. they will not call him a liar!

Clarke is telling the truth. how can I tell. bush has a history of praising and rewarding lying and attacking those who speak the truth.
Wilson, Ritter, Blix, O'Neill, Clarke et al.

[Robbien]

16. Whenever Bush&Co attack the messenger instead of the message

You can take it to the bank that the message is the truth.

[sistersofmercy]

3. Wooohooo, Clarke! Hahahaha, keep bushco on the defensive

It's less time the Dems have to bother with rebuttals. :kick:

[hadrons]

5. yeah, this anonymous source they can find ....

:eyes:

[Manwithchildeyes]

7. His testimony is on audio tape

Hard to deny.

[Missy Vixen]

12. The only people who are obsessed with Clarke's

statements while he was still in the White House are those who don't care for what he has to say both in his book and today's testimony.

>Hard to deny.<

I don't think so.

It'll be harder for the Bush administration to deny that Clarke is telling the truth. They are attacking him, just as they have attacked a long line of former administration employees, who were also telling the truth. The * administration is about to implode.

Their "outing" Clarke today on the background statement of last summer is the same tactic they used with Valerie Plame, which I'm sure isn't lost on those who are still following that story.

Julie

[Supormom]

8. My thoughts exactly.

Perhaps they'll blame him for outing Valerie Plame next!

[Robbien]

11. I wondered how long it would take before this GOP propaganda

would get posted. Clarke was told by his bosses to put a good spin on things and Clarke did.

But the GOP sent out all their minions tonight to post this smear to see if this pitiful offering would somehow mitigate that fact that we were attacked, they knew it and did nada!

[Manwithchildeyes]

17. Difference between a good spin and a lie?

It may be lost on the swing voters.

[Moderator]

18. Locking

consolidating. go here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x442628

or over to GD.