Richard Clarke vs double standard
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Richard Clarke vs double standard
1999: CLARKE DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!
On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.
Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.
The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!
The congressional record; Senator Bennett:
Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.
We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.
Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.
He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule.
As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here.
He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.
So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing.
We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here, but that is what has taken place in the last 10 to 12 hours.
So with that word of explanation and, as I say, disappointment to many of you, I will now officially call the committee to order.
The committee will come to order.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the media not getting this out in defense of Rice!! Which further proves the Dems are hypocrites!!
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!
On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.
Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.
The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!
The congressional record; Senator Bennett:
Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.
We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.
Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.
He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule.
As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here.
He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.
So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing.
We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here, but that is what has taken place in the last 10 to 12 hours.
So with that word of explanation and, as I say, disappointment to many of you, I will now officially call the committee to order.
The committee will come to order.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the media not getting this out in defense of Rice!! Which further proves the Dems are hypocrites!!
0 likes
Re: Richard Clarke vs double standard
Lindaloo wrote:Why is the media not getting this out in defense of Rice!! Which further proves the Dems are hypocrites!!
And we need further proof??

0 likes
-
- Category 5
- Posts: 3453
- Age: 55
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 4:11 pm
- Location: Southern Maryland
- Contact:
Try this Ed, Although some may discredit you if you use a Drudge link
Oops, forgot the link http://www.drudgereport.com/rc1.htm

Oops, forgot the link http://www.drudgereport.com/rc1.htm
0 likes
coriolis wrote:Thanks, Linda,
I had heard about this on Michael Savage, but my google search came up empty. Could you provide your source for future reference?
It was emailed to me from the chairman of the Presidential Campaign. I can't remember the link provided but I know it was not a Drudge link. I am sure I will get something else and will post it here for you Ed.
0 likes
As he's said over and over, when he worked for the Pres he was required to accentuate the positive and play down the negative. All public companies are like that so what's so surprising? He did a great job running the Situation Room crisis center on 9/11 and thereafter. Don't just put him down because the media is partially crucifying him. Most of the 9/11 Panel really like him and so do the military and agencies. The guy has the ability to see the big picture and look beyond and he did a good job over the years in his positions. If you haven't followed him since he was in the State Dept, be careful about jumping on the slaughtering stone.
0 likes
Lindaloo wrote:That is hogwash Corona. If he did such a grand job why was he passed over for promotion? It is SO obvious he is peeved and out for revenge because of it. If he said Bush did a great job then he should stick to his story. Maybe he should be Kerry's VP because he flip flops too.
No - it is not obvious to anyone who has followed his career - his successful 30-Year Career - in public service for the State Department and for multiple Presidencies across multiple political platforms. Did you watch any of the hearings? He made it a point to say - still under oath - that he will not join Kerry's group even if he's asked. Why should he? He can retire and he did. He also formed his own company with Roger Cressy, another State Dept veteran and and Presidential staffer, and after 30-years of working with people he's known just as long, he can pretty much go his own way. He's playing a political game, he is not "out for revenge". Passed over for promotion?? Hardly. Before 9/11 he was already moving over to become the Cyber Security Czar for Bush; no demotion there. He stayed two more years and during that time, the Dept of Homeland Security was formed and his <former> position ceased to exist. He was still the point man at the highest levels for security of both kinds: physical and cyber. The guy's a brainiac, direct, assertive and speaks his mind - no wussiness there. He doesn't need to play baby games. If you don't like him, then fine, just say so, but watch the conjecture about his perceived motives if all the facts are not known. I have to laugh though because this guy invokes strong reactions all over the place - ya either love him or ya hate him.
0 likes
Read something interesting recently about Mr Clarke.
Apparantly in Bill Clinton's last policy paper on national security that was submitted to Congress in December of 2000, fails to mention al Qaeda at any time in the entire report.
Surprised??
Perhaps this won't surprise you either:
This report appears to contradict testimony by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, in which he claimed that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent threat."
But this final national security document, which fails to mention al Qaeda, was written while Mr. Clarke was a high-level national security advisor with the Clinton administration.
hmmmm...is testimonial contradiction considered perjury??
Apparantly in Bill Clinton's last policy paper on national security that was submitted to Congress in December of 2000, fails to mention al Qaeda at any time in the entire report.
Surprised??
Perhaps this won't surprise you either:
This report appears to contradict testimony by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, in which he claimed that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent threat."
But this final national security document, which fails to mention al Qaeda, was written while Mr. Clarke was a high-level national security advisor with the Clinton administration.
hmmmm...is testimonial contradiction considered perjury??
0 likes
so what?
He could be " Out for revenge" as you put it and he could also be correct.
If the Bushies had a brain -- they dont -- they could of made Clarke a NON story.
They should of said ..."yes were wre not paying as much attention to Al Q in out first few months of 2001. We are now. "
Then the media has No place to go. There would of been NO story on the Bush WH.
Of course there still would ofbeen a story about how Clarke gives the Clinton's a free pass on Al Q with 8 years of of doing nothing...
He could be " Out for revenge" as you put it and he could also be correct.
If the Bushies had a brain -- they dont -- they could of made Clarke a NON story.
They should of said ..."yes were wre not paying as much attention to Al Q in out first few months of 2001. We are now. "
Then the media has No place to go. There would of been NO story on the Bush WH.
Of course there still would ofbeen a story about how Clarke gives the Clinton's a free pass on Al Q with 8 years of of doing nothing...
Lindaloo wrote:That is hogwash Corona. If he did such a grand job why was he passed over for promotion? It is SO obvious he is peeved and out for revenge because of it. If he said Bush did a great job then he should stick to his story. Maybe he should be Kerry's VP because he flip flops too.
0 likes
DT wrote:so what?
He could be " Out for revenge" as you put it and he could also be correct.
If the Bushies had a brain -- they dont -- they could of made Clarke a NON story.
They should of said ..."yes were wre not paying as much attention to Al Q in out first few months of 2001. We are now. "
Then the media has No place to go. There would of been NO story on the Bush WH.
Of course there still would ofbeen a story about how Clarke gives the Clinton's a free pass on Al Q with 8 years of of doing nothing...Lindaloo wrote:That is hogwash Corona. If he did such a grand job why was he passed over for promotion? It is SO obvious he is peeved and out for revenge because of it. If he said Bush did a great job then he should stick to his story. Maybe he should be Kerry's VP because he flip flops too.
Flip Flop!
There is no way Clarke is even right. When he was confronted before the 9/11 commission he said nothing remotely even close to what he wrote in his book. Now which version is true? The book or his obvious plot for revenge?
Face it DT, the guy is a loser and has no credibility.
0 likes
-
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
DT wrote:The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay.
I'm unclear here. "The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay...." ??? Did you miss something? That's an incomplete sentence. I can't argue it if it doesn't make sense.
How about explaining just what factual errors to which you are referring anyway? If it's such a shame, point them out, please.
0 likes
so b/c I didnt say "there ARE a number of factual errors..."
you argue and hide behind spelling. OK if that is the way you want it...
you argue and hide behind spelling. OK if that is the way you want it...
GalvestonDuck wrote:DT wrote:The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay.
I'm unclear here. "The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay...." ??? Did you miss something? That's an incomplete sentence. I can't argue it if it doesn't make sense.
How about explaining just what factual errors to which you are referring anyway? If it's such a shame, point them out, please.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests