WP/Milbank: On Trial by GOP, Clarke Is Cool in the Hot Seat

[kskiska]

Thursday, March 25, 2004; Page A01

(snip)

Democrats, prosecuting President Bush for ignoring terrorism before the 2001 attacks, used the newly famous Clarke as their star witness. Republican commission members -- armed with fresh information on Clarke released by the White House yesterday through Fox News -- played defense lawyers determined to discredit the witness as a closet Democrat.

"You've got a real credibility problem," Republican commissioner John F. Lehman told Clarke, the author of a new book eviscerating Bush's terrorism policies. "And because of my real genuine long-term admiration for you," he continued, "I hope you'll resolve that credibility problem, because I'd hate to see you become totally shoved to one side during a presidential campaign as an active partisan selling a book."

Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey sought to build the witness's credibility and objected to the Fox News report one Republican commissioner was using to undermine Clarke. "Well, Mr. Clarke, let me say at the beginning that everything that you've said today and done has not damaged my view of your integrity," the former Nebraska senator declared.

(snip)

Shortly before the hearing, the White House violated its long-standing rules by authorizing Fox News to air remarks favorable to Bush that Clarke had made anonymously at an administration briefing in 2002. The White House press secretary read passages from the 2002 remarks at his televised briefing, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has declined to give public testimony to the commission, called reporters into her office to highlight the discrepancy. "There are two very different stories here," she said. "These stories can't be reconciled."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22218-2004Mar24.html

[daleo]

1. Attack the messenger

Same old story. Not refuting what he says, though.

[gbwarming]

3. SOP. Anybody else hear Blitzer smear: "weird aspects in his life"

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/wbr.00.html

BLITZER: Well, John, I get the sense not only what Dr. Rice just said to you and other reporters at the White House, but what administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well, that they don't know what made this guy come forward and make these accusations against the president.

Is that the sense that you're getting, speaking to a wide range of officials?

KING: None of the senior officials I have spoken to here talked about Mr. Clarke's personal life in any way. But they offer a very mixed picture. They say that he was a very dedicated, a very smart member of the senior White House staff, that he was held over because of his expertise in the Clinton administration on terrorism issues and the Bush administration, these officials say, wanted a smooth transition.

[tom_paine]

5. Corporate TV Pravda is on the job

Protecting Free-Market Stalinst Lies and the Imperial Family Bush since 1933 (when Prescott was laundering Hitler's money).

[TahitiNut]

2. Richard Clarke meet Valerie Plame.

Interesting how the Republican commissioners use the Faux News propaganda as though it were 'testimony' isn't it? Goebbels is sporting a woody in his grave.

[Cocoa]

4. Milbank got the exchange with Big Jim pretty right

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22218-2004Mar24.html

<snip>

Back at the hearing, former Illinois governor James R. Thompson, a Republican member of the commission, took up the cause, waving the Fox News transcript with one hand and Clarke's critical book in the other. "Which is true?" Thompson demanded, folding his arms and glowering down at the witness.

Clarke, appearing unfazed by the apparent contradiction between his current criticism and previous praise, spoke to Thompson as if addressing a slow student.

"I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he explained. "I've done it for several presidents."

With each effort by Thompson to highlight Clarke's inconsistency -- "the policy on Uzbekistan, was it changed?" -- Clarke tutored the commissioner about the obligations of a White House aide. Thompson, who had far exceeded his allotted time, frowned contemptuously. "I think a lot of things beyond the tenor and the tone bother me about this," he said. During a second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the subject, questioning Clarke's "standard of candor and morality."

"I don't think it's a question of morality at all; I think it's a question of politics," Clarke snapped.

Thompson had to wait for Sept. 11, 2001, victims' relatives in the gallery to stop applauding before he pleaded ignorance of the ways of Washington. "I'm from the Midwest, so I think I'll leave it there," he said. Moments later, Thompson left the hearing room and did not return.

<snip>