I wonder if Mr. Clarke has perjured himself? If this is true, it's hard to come to any other conclusion. He either did it then, or this week.

Can we also declassify those bits of the Congressional investigation that deal with the Saudis now?

Is there some reason to believe that they're in conflict with public sworn testimony, or that someone perjured himself in them?

Clarke is clearly getting deeper and deeper into the trap of his own vendetta. If he committed lies of comission -- in the press briefing in 2002 and in the hearings in 2002 -- as well as the lie of omission by not expressing his complaints during 14 hours of closed testimony...well, the full force of the wrath of the committee and the Bush team will -- rightly -- come down on his ass like the proverbial ton of bricks.

Reminds me of an old saw: "If you are going to kill the King, you better not miss."

Yeah -- why not declassify it, but Clarke's entire testimony should be made available in that case. This White House is quite good at quoting facts out of context.

Josh Marshall has other good recommendations for the GOP:

Second, the Bush administration should de-classify other documents that surround the Clarke testimony, such as his January 25, 2002, plan for action against al Qaeda, in order to clarify the issues that are in dispute.

And finally, the Bush administration should release all other testimony and documents related to 9-11 for which classification can no longer be justified -- including the 27 pages of the Joint Inquiry's final report that address the involvement of a foreign government in supporting some of the 19 hijackers while they lived among us and finalized their evil plot.

The American people deserve to know what their government has done -- and should be doing -- to protect them from terrorists, and who should be held accountable for shortcomings that have left our country vulnerable."

This White House is quite good at quoting facts out of context.

As opposed to previous White Houses? Or any politician of either party?

Yes, I'm sure that Josh Marshall has the best interests of the GOP at heart...

I absolutely agree with declassifying all the relevant data (I have too little data to guess at what that would entail). Let the facts speak for themselves. While Clarke seems almost too solid in his demeanor and appears to be politically savvey enough to control the data he exposes, he has been the only agent to objectively (releative to anything else in washington) lay out the facts (if in a somewhat inappropriately profiteering manner) and then stand by them under oath. He has naturaly drawn conclusions from the facts that are biased by his experience (although there is no indication he has reason for revenge; he was not fired or encouraged to leave his post). However, the public has undenieably gained acces to significant data that would otherwise have continued to be unavailable (hidden?). I just hope we can get the whole story and have the chance to make up our own minds.

...there is no indication he has reason for revenge; he was not fired or encouraged to leave his post...

I don't think you've been paying attention. He was denied a new post that he wanted. And I don't know why you say that he was the only one to "objectively lay out the facts under oath." How do you know he did this, and how is he different from Don Rumsfeld, or George Tenet? Why do you believe that he's doing it "objectively" and they are not?

>> This White House is quite good at quoting facts
>> out of context.

> As opposed to previous White Houses? Or any
> politician of either party?

Of course not -- but if this election is supposed to be about national security, don't you think voters should have access to Clarke's full testimony as opposed to merely the bits the White House thinks should be declassified?

> I don't think you've been paying attention. He
> was denied a new post that he wanted.

So you immediately start dismissing his motives and the honesty of his beliefs regarding Al Qaeda because of it? Lest we forget, Clarke is a) by all accounts both smart, knowledgeable and experienced, b) actually a Republican, c) he has worked for several Administrations, and d) vehemently denied he is looking for a job in the White House in case Kerry wins.
---
Given these facts, it sounds quite likely that he is more than merely a lying and/or mis-informed opportunist. Whether his version of what was going on in the Administration in 2001-03 is correct is, of course, debatable but he is probably telling the facts as he sees them.

MARCU$

I think that the voters should hear enough to know whether or not he lied then, or lied now and in his book, without compromising security (which is the reason that things are classified.

And no, I don't "dismiss his motives and honesty" because he's a disgruntled employee--there are ample other reasons to do so. I was simply pointing out that the commenter was mistaken--that he did have a motive for revenge.

Certainly his potential motives have to be factored in, as one potential explanation as to why his story has changed so dramatically since leaving the White House. Are you saying it should be ignored?

And Marcus, if you don't believe that "this White House" is unique in its spin, then why use the wording "this White House"?

Never forget that this book is published by a Viacom subsidiary, and Viacom also owns CBS. The book was supposed to be released near the end of APRIL, but release was moved up. So, we have a disgruntled employee that failed to adapt to the management style of the new administration, who is trying to sell a book. And we have the parent company featuring said book on a "news" magazine of a network it owns, without disclosing the connection. And the parent company does this while suddenly moving up the release date to have the book come out right before the 9/11 hearings.

Bottom line, there is NO reason to place any faith in what Clarke says. He has ZERO credibility. His apology to America should've been to apologize for trying to manipulate the 9/11 hearings to sell his book.

- Eric.

This guy was in charge of counterterrorism through the Cole incident, the Khobar Towers, the First World Trade Center bombing, and several attacks on American embassies in Africa. having him write a "inside-the-administration's-failure" book about September 11 is like watching Neville Chambarlain write a "How to Win the War Against Germany" tract. Watching people take him seriously is like watching people write checks to Jim and Tammy Faye.

If indicted, Clarke can subpoena Condi Rice, who MUST then testify under oath. Go ahead, indict.

Bottom line, there is NO reason to place any
faith in what Clarke says. He has ZERO
credibility.

Let's decide if he has credibility *AFTER* they have declassified his testimony and the other associated documents Clarke mentions... And let's have Rice testify under oath as well.

Heck -- this could be great fun to watch! Let's hope this drags on for weeks and weeks and that US voters get as much information about the Administration's terrorism policies before and after 9/11 as possible.

This guy was in charge of counterterrorism through the Cole incident, the Khobar Towers, the First World Trade Center bombing, and several attacks on American embassies in Africa ...

...as well as several efforts to actually get even with Al Qaeda, which apparently are outlined in the book. It seems to paint a much more balanced picture of which Administration really was concerned about ordinary "boring" stateless terrorism not involving ballistic missiles, rogue dictators and weapons of mass destruction. We all know the current President was talking about the latter threat before and after the 2000 elections. This Administration's long standing obsession with Iraq is also well documented, but can anybody recall anything significant being said about Al Qaeda before 9/11? Clarke's comments sound quite believable when taken in this context.

Certainly his potential motives have to be
factored in, as one potential explanation as to
why his story has changed so dramatically since
leaving the White House. Are you saying it
should be ignored?

I am not. In fact, it seems quite evident he is upset because this Administration did not pay as much attention to his warnings as (according to what he says-) Clinton did. But you are making it sound as if he is merely going public to boost his book sales, because of personal vendettas etc..
---
Anyway, if Sen. Frist thinks Clarke is a liar and perjurer, let's declassify the whole thing. It seems Clarke & several Democratic Senators are in favor of making the records public in any case.

MARCU$

Perjury, smerjury. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_28.php#002775

Rand, while you were wrong about my not paying attention, you were indirectly correct that my bias was demonstrated by that particular claim. I'll pretty much stand by what Marcus had to say in direct response (thanks for that, I've been experiencing technical difficulties). Let the facts fall where they may. It would be fundamentally unjust to allow someone to make an accusation, and then block access to the evidence required to determine the truth of the matter.

As for perjury, I found it interesting that Frist was willing to accuse Clarke of lieing on the floor of congress (where nothing he says can be the basis for a slander claim), but backed down from accusing perjury as soon as he was off the floor and speaking to the press. This is by no means conclusive, but seems to be in the same class of evidence as Clark's employment history.