Honesty Results: Richard Clarke: 1, Condoleeza Rice: 0

This is more housekeeping than anything else. When Richard Clarke and Condoleeza Rice were testifying before the 9/11 Commission, it was obvious to anyone paying attention (and possessing a shred of objectivity) that one of them was telling something fairly close to the truth, while the other was full of shit. And the truthful one wasn’t the one still working for the Bush Administration.

Anyway, that means that the following isn’t really news. But given certain folks’ penchant for always viewing Fearless Leader in the most favorable light, I guess it’s important to note, in passing, that recently released documentary evidence puts the final nail in the coffin of Rice’s credibility: Condi lied: Declassified memo from Clarke.

21 Responses to “Honesty Results: Richard Clarke: 1, Condoleeza Rice: 0”

  1. Jim Says:

    This entire Administration is so dishonest and self-serving that I believe everything they say to be a lie until proved otherwise – and a significant portion of people I know do the same.

    It is sad (for lack of a better word) that this is what we’ve come to in the country. I used to shake my head in disbelief when I would hear the Soviets mouth the most ridiculous nonsense, like “the Berlin wall is to keep the West out not to keep our people in” or “we’re in Afghanistan to liberate it” and now I shake my head in disbelief because we’ve become the Soviets.

    The upside to this is that whatever patriotism I once felt for this country is completely gone. I no longer feel pride when I see the flag, nor do I believe we’re the “good guys”. We’re not “exceptional”.

    Given power and an abundance of hubris we have finally proven to ourselves and to the world that we’re nothing special, and thats a good thing for anyone with oversized falsely inflated egos like ours.

  2. Craig Says:

    It seems to me that there was nothing new or specific in Clarke’s memo regarding an al-Qaeda threat or a detailed plan of action to counter it. And that even Clarke said in the hearings that if every point in his memo was implemented it would likely not have prevented the 9/11 attacks. So, in fact, was there any real plan of action presented to the Administration regarding the threat?

  3. John Callender Says:

    Yeah, that’s where I just boggle, Craig. I can understand wanting Bush to look as good as possible, and finding a way to explain away his administration’s ignoring of the al Qaeda threat in the months leading up to 9/11 is certainly a necessity for anyone who wants to do that. But to argue, as you appear to be doing here, that Clarke actually _didn’t_ push hard for the administration to pay more attention to al Qaeda, and that the administration _didn’t_ screw up by ignoring that pushing, is just… I dunno. Boggle-worthy.

    It was the administration’s responsibility to come up with the plan. That it failed to even do anything at all, because all that non-state terrorism stuff was wimpy Clinton-era thinking, and the Bush team did manly state-oriented stuff, is so thoroughly damning, given the result of that decision, that I just…

    Nothing. I’ve got nothing more to say about it. Your argument carried the day, at least with 52%-ish of the electorate, so yeah, your boy is officially the one to lead us through these troubling times. God help us.

  4. Jim Says:

    What’s mindboggling is that every discussion about the merits of a course of action taken by this Administration must always be prefaced by the stipulation that nothing is ever George Bush’s fault.

  5. Craig Says:

    Once again, my lengthier comment is blocked. So I’ll just say this: There is always more that, in hindsight, the Bush Administration, the CIA, the FBI, the FAA, whoever….could have done to identify and deal with a threat. Clarke happened to pick the right group, out of all those that want to do the US harm every day, but he didn’t really have anything substantial to raise the threat to a more urgent issue than all others. And those who had other pieces to the puzzle couldn’t get their voices heard through the bureaucratic maze. So yeah, since it happened on his watch, Bush has to take some responsibility for the attack.

    The point, I thought, to this comment thread was that some kind of “A-HA GOTCHA!!” smoking gun has been pinned to Rice and the Bush Administration with this Clarke memo, that a specific threat was ignored. But even the 9/11 Commission, to whom this memo is old news, knew that wasn’t true. Even Clarke himself.

  6. Craig Says:

    For what its worth, if Daily Kos is actually going to be used as evidence of the “truth” of a particular story or point, I would hope that any future link, by those of an opposing view, to a site like Hugh Hewitt, would be view with the same assumed accuracy.

    Otherwise, the hypocrisy will be obvious.

  7. Jim Says:

    Oh for the love of God.

    Because Kos cites a particular point by Hewitt it doesn’t mean ALL of Hewitts points or stories are reasonable or true.

    Why does this need to be explained? Isn’t this obvious?

  8. Craig Says:

    My point is if an obvious source who pushes a leftist agenda can be cited to be a truthful source of information, then I would assume that one who is an Conservative shrill should have the same consideration, if used.

  9. Craig Says:

    My point was, if a blogger with an obvious and extreme leftist agenda like Kos is going to be cited to substantiate a story’s accuracy (as in the case of this Rice/Clarke posting), then I would anticipate that someone else could validate their own opinion by citing a Conservative shrill such as Hugh Hewitt, without objection as to his bias.

  10. Super Mega Posable Freedom Ranger Says:

    “extreme leftist agenda.” good one.

  11. Craig Says:

    If you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge the leftist political viewpoint that Kos filters all his postings through, then you and I won’t have any honest common ground to base this discussion on. I can freely admit that Hewitt is often a Bush apoligist and staunch Conservative messenger.

  12. Rise Against Says:

    Who cares what the bloggers say or what their political leanings are?

    I saw Condi lie right to the American people on live television.

    Care to refute that, oh ya, and I beleive i was watching the proceedings on Fox News of all places. She lied. Period.

  13. Craig Says:

    And before anyone makes any “pot calling the kettle black” reference to me, no, I do not walk lock-step with everything Bush says! I have serious concerns about his Social Security remedy, I think his Clear Skies initiative could be more aggressive (though not Kyoto-like), I think his committment to no raised taxes is too confining of a position to take, and the post-war contingency planning should have been better thought out in some regards.

    Hewitt comes off mostly as a Conservative mouthpiece and a lackey of the current Administration. Which to me, hurts his credibility even when he does have intelligent and insightful things to say. I mean, when he can score the first Bush-Kerry debate as a decisive win for Bush, that tells me all I need to know about whether he can make reasonable critiques of Bush!!

  14. Craig Says:

    I can refute it, but it likely won’t convince someone who is determined to see a great untruth in Dr. Rice’s words. It seems to me that there was nothing new brought forward by Clarke’s memo that wasn’t already made fully known to the Bush Administration. Certainly nothing that the 9/11 Commission itself saw as being mischaracterized by Dr. Rice’s statement. Even Clarke himself conceded the limitations of his document….

    SLADE GORTON, Commission member: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

    CLARKE: No.

    GORTON: It just would have allowed our response, after 9/11, to be perhaps a little bit faster?

    CLARKE: Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.

    GORTON: Yes, but there was no recommendation, on your part or anyone else’s part, that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

    CLARKE: That’s right.

  15. Patriot Says:

    Wait a sec here. Craig makes a good point you glossed over. If y’all wanna win elections, you’re gonna have to cope with the idea that Conservatives do not all agree with one another.

    I too have rather loud disagreements with the President and do not really like being in a position of defending him. I’d much rather be in a position of attacking the palistinians cause or, for that matter, attacking iraq. I think Bush is selling pieces of Israel to some of the most dangerous evildoers in the world, and that he’s selling even larger pieces of the United States to Mexico with his border policy…. no make that his lack of border policy.

    I voted for Bush because our purposes happen to run along similar lines at the moment, and I don’t think Mr. Bush is THE DEVIL HIMSELF as you leftists all uniformly appear to believe; all the while denying that the Devil exists in the first place. Doublethink again.

  16. Rise Against Says:

    Bush is just so hypocritical though. I mean he talks a good game about Social Security, how it would be irresponsible to leave it for future generations. While have the country seems to dispute there is even a ‘crisis’. Sure, it would would need tinkering, but a ‘crisis’?

    Then he balks at Kyoto. The biggest polluting country in world doesn’t sign the treay that 141 other countries signed on. Talk about ignornace. Kyoto might not be perfect, but what it does is it starts to change our culture, the way inventors invent, the way we view our actions as human beings on a fragile planet.

    President George W. Bush’s decision to renege on a commitment to Kyoto by his predecessor is problematic. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a champion of Kyoto who supported Bush in Iraq at great political cost, should call in his chips. The U.S. is responsible for 36 per cent of emissions by the industrial world, but Bush says Kyoto would hurt the American economy. If global warming plays out even close to the models being projected, damage to the environment, agriculture and coastal areas would be far worse than the short-term suffering some envision.

    Lost on many naysayers are the economic opportunities presented by Kyoto. Those are being touted by Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada (PTAC) chief Eric Lloyd. A petroleum engineer for 30 years, Lloyd has crunched the numbers to show that if PTAC members (most of the big players in the oil patch) invested up to $4 billion over five years, they could save $1 billion a year, recoup their investment in equipment and reduce emissions by 29 megatonnes.

    Too bad the auto industry, which has opposed mandatory standards on fuel efficiency, has been so slow to explore the market for “green” cars.

    Industry, business, homeowners and drivers must see the benefits of energy conservation and know the repercussions of the status quo.

    The damage caused by over-use of fossil fuels dates back to the beginning if the Industrial Revolution in 1750 in Britain. It won’t be rectified in the first stage of Kyoto. But it is an opportunity to refine the template for the road back.

    Doing nothing is not an option.

  17. Patriot Says:

    OK, if you will admit that Bush is not THE DEVIL HIMSELF then I can stop being in a position of defending him? I think he’s just an average politician on the corruption scale and perhaps a little better than most but probably not by much. I mean I could say, “Bush is less corrupt than X person!” but that would be justifying corruption wouldn’t it? Basically all our politicians are not to be trusted, not just Republicrats who come from Texas and like to drill oil.

    But I must refute your enviromentalist whacko point.
    “Then he balks at Kyoto. The biggest polluting country in world doesn’t sign the treay that 141 other countries signed on. Talk about ignornace. Kyoto might not be perfect, but what it does is it starts to change our culture, the way inventors invent, the way we view our actions as human beings on a fragile planet.”
    The fact that we are “the biggets polluting country” is presicely the reason why we aren’t going to sign on to any international enviromentalist crap.
    There is no evidence to suggest that the earth is fragile.
    I really don’t understand how you seem to think that “pollution” is an enemy to “nature.”

  18. Rise Against Says:

    How old are you Patriot, 5?

    What do you mean you don’t think the earth is fragile? Have you ever tried to look at the sky in Los Angeles? What about New York? Pollution isn’t a problem? Acid rain? Toxic waste dumps? Do you live on another planet or something? Do you think that we can just keep polluting our air/water/haitats and everything will be fine for our grandchildren? Give your head a shake man.

    If 30 years ago someone said we will all be drinking bottle water because most of our lake watwer is polluted you would have laughed. What if I said if we don’t do somehting soon, in 50 years we will all be breathing through bottled air, would you laugh? Because you are the biggest polluting country in the world is why Bush won’t do anything to minimize it? That doesn’t even makes sense buddy. Thats like saying the smelliest person in the room doesn’t need a shower.

    I refuse to even debate this issue with you Patriot. I have never seen a more narrow-minded, stubborn individual as you. You don’t even accept facts. So now you’re saying 141 countries are “whackos”? Absolutely ridiculous.

    Doesn’t the fact that we are talking about your president on a website called ‘lies.com’ ring a little bell in your head? People who care for our environemnt are “whackos”? I don’t see how you could be so intolerant to people who care about our fragile planet. And yes it is a fragile planet, I say this with a masters degree in environmental science. See I base my opinions on research and facts, a novel idea you should try sometime.

  19. Thom Says:

    I don’t come a round here much any more, and I think I just remembered why.

  20. Rise Against Says:

    Why, because you’re a republican and they’re getting their butts whipped around here?

  21. Rise Against Says:

    :-) j/k Thom.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.