John Kerry calls on the lying, crooked Republican Attack Machine to end the character assasination of Richard Clarke.
Maybe we can help - if we were questioning Clarke's miltary service from over thirty years ago, or revealing that he had been arrested for drunk driving many years ago, that might be character assasination.
If we were shouting that he had betrayed his country, or re-cycling speculation that he had turned a blind eye to 9/11 because he was in cahoots with a foreign power, that might be character assasination.
But let's take a look at what Dr. Frist is actually saying on the Senate floor (where he is immune from slander suits, right?):
There are five points that I find absolutely inexplicable about Mr. Clarke's performance this past week.
First, in an e-mail to the national security adviser four days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke expressed alarm that when the era of national unity begins to crack, an effort to assign responsibility for the 9/11 attacks will begin. In that e-mail, Mr. Clarke proceeds to lay out in detail a defense of his own actions before the attack and those of the entire administration.
Mr. Clarke was clearly consumed by the desire to dodge any blame for the 9/11 attacks, while at that same moment rescuers were still searching the rubble of the World Trade Center for survivors.
Mr. Clarke implies to Tim Russert that he was asked to provide the CYA memo by Condi Rice. I welcome rebuttal evidence on this point, but there is certainly a chance that Dr. Frist has gone overboard on this point.
Second, in the August of 2002 interview I just referred to [a background briefing Mr. Clarke gave to reporters], Mr. Clarke gave a thorough account of the Bush administration's active policy against Al Qaeda. Mr. Clarke now explains away that media performance by suggesting that he was simply telling lies in an interview as a loyal administration official.
A loyal administration official? Does Mr. Clarke understand the gravity of the issues being reviewed by the 9/11 commission and the gravity of the charges he has made?
The WaPo seems satisfied Mr. Clarke is exaggerating his case. We are scoring this as a very reasonable question, rather than assasination.
Third, Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath. In July 2002, in front of the Congressional joint inquiry on the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke testified under oath that the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by Al Qaeda during its first seven months in office.
It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media. But if he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far more serious matter.
This is a very serious charge. Based on the Frontline interview and the August 2002 briefing, I would not be surprised if it were true - his tone surely has changed, and perhaps, as a loyal staffer, he felt obliged to give a positive spin to Congress. If a guy is lying, is it "character assasination" to say so?
Fourth, notwithstanding Mr. Clarke's efforts to use his book first and foremost to shift blame and attention from himself, it is also clear that Mr. Clarke and his publishers adjusted the release date of his book in order to make maximum gain from the publicity around the 9/11 hearings. Assuming the controversy around this series of events does in fact drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make quite a bit of money for his efforts.
I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, trading on his insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce any plan to personally profit from this book.
There seems to be no question that the publisher timed the book to hit the stores the week of Clarke's testimony. And of course, the media giant in question used its "60 Minutes" television arm to promote the book as well.
Current calculations suggest that Clarke will gross well over a million dollars for this (The NY Times reports 450,000 book x $4/book as a working estimate). Pay your agent and your taxes, and it still beats a civil servants paycheck. TIME notes a shrill, partisan tone, and inflammatory inconsistencies between the book and the 60 Minutes television promotion. Connect the dots.
On his recent "Meet The Press" appearance, Dick Clarke suggested several times that both sides raise the tone:
And you know, Tim, what I would like to do, beginning today, it's been going on for a week now. What I would like to do beginning today, is let's raise the level of discourse. Let's get some civility back into this issue. And let's talk about the issues. Let's not talk about the personalities. I have great respect for Dr. Rice. People have been saying all week that, you know, I must have a grudge against Condi Rice. I have known Condi for a long time. I think she's a very, very good person. And I don't want this to be about personality. I want it to be about the issues, about the war in Iraq and its affect on the war on terror.
Fine. In pursuit of that laudable objective, and while on the subject of Condoleeza Rice, maybe Mr. Clarke would like to try for another apology. Something along the lines of "I am sorry I wrote in my best-selling book that she appeared never to have heard of Al Qaeda" would be fine. And no, "she's a very, very good person" comes nowhere near the point - he attacked her competence, not her niceness.
And while we are rasing the tone, perhaps we can get clarification from Mr. Clarke about how Osama's mind-rays work on George Bush:
"It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq,' " Clarke writes.
Now, I think it is as if George Soros, in some chic hide-away, is engaging in long range mind control of Dick Clarke, chanting "Dump on Bush, Dump on Bush". But I suspect I would be criticized for engaging in character assasination if I said so.
MORE: The "InContext" crowd makes a different point; we note that Dick Clarke explains that his Aug 2002 briefing was inspired by this TIME magazine cover story; he fails to note (as does the usually alert Tim Russert) that Sandy Berger backpedaled vigorously under oath.
MORE: Later that day, on CNN Late Night, Clarke says "Let's get more civil. If I have been guilty of overheating the argument, as well, then I apologize. Let's see if we can retain some level of civility here in Washington and talk about the issues."
If? He seemed happy enough dishing it out. And happy to cash the check.
Reading the Meet The Press Transcript, and trying to feel charitable to Clarke, one first wonders whether Clarke had spent any time at all in a bureaucracy (yes, we know he had); then one concludes that perhaps, under Clinton, nothing happened without Clintonian involvement - all energy flowed down from the top. Clarke seems not to have grasped that under Bush, a Deputies meeting actually meant something - options are reviewed, preliminary decisions made, and so on. Several bits illustrate this:
CLARKE: ...So we now have the staff report of the 9-11 Commission, and it says, "On January 25th, Clarke forwarded his December strategy paper to the new national security adviser, and it proposed covert action to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, significantly increasing CIA funding, retaliating for the USS Cole, arming the Predator aircraft, going after terrorist fund raising."
Now, Dr. Rice has characterized this as not a plan, not a strategy, not a series of decisions which could be made right away, but warmed-over Clinton material. Let's declassify that memo I sent on January 25th and let's declassify the national security directive that Dr. Rice's committee approved nine months later on September 4th, and let's see if there's any difference between those two, because there isn't. And what we'll see when we declassify what they were given on January 25th and what they finally agreed to on September 4th, is that they're basically the same thing and they wasted months when we could have had some action.
I emphasis the word "propose" in his speech. In a normal bureaucracy, after someone has a proposal, it is reviewed by the relevant folks at the relevant departments. Eventually, if Fate smiles on the proposal, it is approved, staffed, and funded. These things take time, and much had been done by early September; however, in Clarke's world, these things don't happen at all unless the President intervenes. Which I suspect was the case under Clinton, since no comprehensive plan had been developed in the preceding years. Another illustration:
MR. RUSSERT: On a scale of one to 10, how would you rate President Bush's performance on the war on terror prior to September 11?
MR. CLARKE: Well, there wasn't any personal performance by the president prior to September 11. Now, the only thing that I was ever able to detect that he did on the war on terrorism was after Tenet had been briefing him day after day after day after day about an al-Qaeda threat, the president said, in May, "Well, let's, you know, get a strategy." That's the only thing I ever heard that he got involved in personally.
...And, interestingly enough, the president never said after that May conversation, "Where's the strategy?" And, again, if you go back to what the president himself says to Bob Woodward, he said, "I knew there was a strategy in the works. But I didn't know how mature the plan was." He's saying this on September 11. He didn't know where the strategy was. The strategy that he had asked for in May? He'd never come back and asked where it was. You know, basically, it wasn't an urgent issue for them before September 11.
Sometimes the Presidency can be a team sport. And if the President has confidence in his underlings, he will have confidence that they will bring him the plan when it is ready, which seems to have ocurred in early September. Again, I suspect that things worked differently under Clinton. One last illustration:
I asked in January to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I was told, "You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy development process."
He had briefed those three, and felt that it didn't count unless the President heard it directly from him?
Re-read the 9/11 Commission Staff Staement Number 8 to see the managerial wizardry of the Clintonian years. A long bit:
...In each area responsibilities were assigned to the departments and agencies of the government.
These efforts were to be coordinated by a subordinate NSC committee called the CSG. During
the Clinton administration these initials stood for “Counterterrorism and Security Group.” This
committee was chaired by an NSC staff member, Richard Clarke. The CSG was the place where
domestic security agencies, such as the FBI, regularly met alongside representatives from the
traditional national security agencies.
Since 1989 each administration has organized its top NSC advisory bodies in three layers. At the
top is the National Security Council, the formal statutory body whose meetings are chaired by
the president. Beneath it is the Principals Committee, with cabinet-level representatives from
agencies. The Principals Committee is usually chaired by the national security adviser. Next is
the Deputies Committee, where the deputy agency heads meet under the chairmanship of the
deputy national security adviser. Lower-ranking officials meet in many other working groups or
coordinating committees, reporting to the deputies and, through them, to the principals. The CSG
was one of these committees.
This ordinary committee system is often adjusted in a crisis. Because of the sensitivity of the
intelligence and the military options being considered, President Clinton created a “Small
Group” in which a select set of principals would frequently meet without aides to discuss Khobar
Towers or Usama Bin Ladin. The participants would usually be National Security Adviser
Samuel Berger, DCI George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary
William Cohen, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Hugh Shelton, Deputy National Security Adviser
James Steinberg, White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, Richard Clarke, and Vice President
Gore’s national security adviser, Leon Fuerth. Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director
Louis Freeh would sometimes participate.
National Security Adviser Berger told us that he designed the Small Group process to keep the
highly-sensitive information closely held. There were few paper records. One tradeoff in such a
system was that other senior officials in agencies around the government sometimes had little
knowledge about what was being decided in this group, other than what they could obtain from
the principals or Clarke. This sometimes led to misunderstandings and friction.
In early 1998, the Clinton administration prepared a new presidential directive on
counterterrorism. Its goals were to strengthen the “lead agency” approach in ten program areas,
reemphasize the importance President Clinton attached to unconventional threats at home and
abroad, and strengthen interagency coordination. The draft directive would strengthen Clarke’s
role by creating the position of a national coordinator for counterterrorism who would be a full
member of the Principals Committee or Deputies Committee for meetings on these topics.
The duties of the national coordinator were debated in the preparation of this directive. Prior
episodes, including Iran-Contra in the 1980s, had underscored the problems of operations run by
White House or NSC staff whose legal authorities are derived solely from the president and are
therefore outside of the usual process of congressional confirmation, budgeting, or oversight.
Responding to such concerns, the May 1998 directive, Presidential Decision Directive 62,
provided that the coordinator would not direct operations, that the CSG would ordinarily report
to the Deputies Committee, and that the new structure would not change the established budget
process.
Nevertheless, as it evolved during the Clinton administration, the CSG effectively reported
directly to principals, and with the principals often meeting only in the restricted Small Group.
This process could be very effective in overseeing fast-developing but sensitive operations,
moving issues quickly to the highest levels, and keeping secrets. However, since the Deputies
and other subcabinet officials were not members of the CSG, this process created a challenge for
integrating counterterrorism issues into the broader agenda of these agencies and the U.S.
government.
Clarke was a controversial figure. A career civil servant, he drew wide praise as someone who
called early and consistent attention to the seriousness of the terrorism danger. A skilled
operator of the levers of government, he energetically worked the system to address
vulnerabilities and combat terrorists. Some colleagues have described his working style as
abrasive. Some officials told us that Clarke had sometimes misled them about presidential
decisions or interfered in their chain of command. National Security Adviser Berger told us that
several of his colleagues had wanted Clarke fired. But Berger’s net assessment was that Clarke
fulfilled an important role in pushing the interagency process to fight Bin Ladin. As Berger put
it, “I wanted a pile driver.”
Clarke often set the agenda and laid out the options, but he did not help run any of the executive
departments of the government. Final decision-making responsibility resided with others.
Last point - Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, in response to a question from Gorton, that if his plan had been adopted in its entirety, it would not have thwarted 9/11.
The White House did hold the publication of Clarke's book up for four months. Clarke had no control over when his book was published. And besides, is anyone writing a book about 9/11 "profiteering" off the 9/11 dead? I think that charge should count as character assassination on Frist's part.
Also, Frist later admitted he had no idea whether or not Clarke lied. I think accusing someone of perjury without evidence should count as character assassination.
Posted by: sym | March 30, 2004 at 04:20 AM
From the Times:
It took some quick footwork to get the book into the headlines this week, if not into the hands of everyone who wants to buy it. Its publisher, The Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, managed to get it into stores a week before schedule when it learned that Mr. Clarke was testifying this week before the commission. And Mr. Clarke's publicists got him a prime spot on "60 Minutes" on Sunday, the night before the book went on sale.
None of whichhe controlled personally, of course. But he will still cash the checks. And if he had said, hold on, that looks exploitative, what might have happened?
As to Frist, he was speaking on behalf of Porter Goss, the House side of the Joint Committee. I find it odd that he is so sure Clarke is lying, but his reason for saying it is, a guy i trust told me so.
We notice that no elected Dem has come forward by name and said "I have re-read Clarke's testimony, it is fine". Some folks, like Graham, give us hedged answers - I don't recall a problem, or my staffsays it is OK.
One Dem staffer did give us this, however:
Mr. Clarke's Congressional testimony, given while he was still at the White House, put a more "positive spin" on the administration's counterterrorism efforts, just as he did in a 2002 press briefing that was released last week, said a senior Democratic Congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. But factually, it did not appear to contradict what Mr. Clarke told the Sept. 11 commission last week, the aide said.
Deeply reassuring.
We are ignoring Mr. Ben-Veniste's hedged comment, BTW, which was:
"it is not my recollection that there were any notable or substantive differences in testimony."
Another Times source for attack/defend quotes was
Leaders of G.O.P. Try to Discredit a Critic of Bush. And somewhere Chris Shays called out Clarke.
So there are several elected Reps standing up to support the attack. And Colin Powell. No Dems, yet, that I have seen, are actually saying "Clarke did not lie, evade, or spin", although I welcome nominees.
Posted by: TM | March 30, 2004 at 12:02 PM
If Clarke's sworn statements vary as much as his 2002 backgrounder does from more recent statements, the Senate probably ought to look into it. And Frist's actual statement has qualifiers such that it doesn't quite "accuse Clarke of perjury":
"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath. In July 2002, in front of the Congressional Joint Inquiry on the September 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke testified under oath that the Administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first seven months in office.
Mr. President, it is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media. But if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far more serious matter. As I mentioned, the intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke's previous testimony declassified so as to permit an examination of Mr. Clarke's two different accounts. Loyalty to any Administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied before Congress." [emphasis added]
Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 30, 2004 at 01:23 PM
Clarke told Russert that Bush (and Gore) never mentioned the Cole. He also continues to say that Bush did "nothing," a step up from his "virtually nothing" that was debunked by Jim Angle. But again, Clarke was just "spinning." Clarke's apologists say that Clarke's words must be disproven. This of course is classic shifting of the burden of proof. Instead, Clarke should begin by disproving, not dismissing, his claims from 2002.
Posted by: HH | March 30, 2004 at 04:47 PM
"The White House did hold the publication of Clarke's book up for four months. Clarke had no control over when his book was published."
Uh-huh... of course the "week early" claims are misleading too, as it was scheduled for late April before.
Posted by: HH | March 30, 2004 at 04:49 PM
Thanks to Steve Antler for the link to this, which allows me to continue to indulge in character assassination of a "real character":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4616750/
"The Bush administration brought an end to such informality and openness—and to Clarke's access. Clinton, like many Democratic presidents, enjoyed being the center of a wheel with many spokes. Bush follows the more hierarchical Republican executive model. The Bushies thought they were bringing order to chaos, but for Clarke the new order felt like a demotion, and he squawked. Told that he had to vacate his warren of offices overlooking the Ellipse (the same offices once occupied by Oliver North) in order to make room for the NSC communications and speechwriting staff, Clarke threatened to sue. (He cited an obscure statute that prohibits spending government money on office decorations.) And he engaged in passive-aggressive warfare with his new boss, Condi Rice."
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 30, 2004 at 07:18 PM
At long last, Lisa Myers did a story on Clarke's veracity, though she's about a week behind and only touches the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: HH | March 30, 2004 at 08:04 PM
But Frist himself said "it is also clear that Mr. Clarke and his publishers adjusted the release date of his book in order to make maximum gain from the publicity around the 9/11 hearings." Does he have proof that Clarke controlled the timing of his book's release? And if the White House had not taken so long to clear it, it would have been released earlier.
Besides, what's the difference between his book and, say, David Frum's? They are both using their insider status to sell books. Is David Frum also a war profiteer? When did conservatives come out against free enterprise, anyways?
Posted by: sym | March 30, 2004 at 08:44 PM
MOre Frist: “Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” Frist said in a speech from the Senate floor, alleging that Clarke said in 2002 that the Bush administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al-Qaida before the attacks.
Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. But he said, “Until you have him under oath both times, you don’t know.”
He personally had no knowledge there were any discrepancies? Maybe he could have said that before he (kinda) accused Clarke of perjury.
As for Graham, he is calling for the release of Clarke's testimony. So, for that matter, is Clarke. They don't seem too worried about it. Of course, what they fear is this:
"U.S. officials told NBC News that the full record of Clarke’s testimony two years ago would not be declassified. They said that at the request of the White House, however, the CIA was going through the transcript to see what could be declassified, with an eye toward pointing out contradictions."
I think asking the CIA to selctively declassify quotes out of context counts as character assassination.
Furthermore, Robert Novak and Anne Coulter accused Clarke of attacking Rice because he hates black people. Wonkette is reporting the next line of attack will be that Clarke is gay. If the RAM starts saying Clarke is gay, promise that you'll be willing to call that character assassination. OK?
Posted by: sym | March 30, 2004 at 08:54 PM
Frist is almost certainly basing his "two entirely different stories" remark on hearsay. However, the "selectively declassify" defense ignores Clarke's public statements over the same period. In the backgrounder he said:
On Meet the Press it was:Maybe you can call that spin on the same set of facts. But the characterizations ("no delay" vs "they wasted months" or "they never got around to doing anything") look like diametric opposites. Similar statements under oath may not be perjury, but it's definitely "two entirely different stories."Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 30, 2004 at 09:31 PM
Is "gay" really coming next? I actually got curious a few days ago when a NY Times story described Clarke as "single" - seemed odd that they mentioned it, and odd that a sixty year old guy wouldn't be married, divorced, or widowed. It turned out that I had no luck determining his marital status (a WaPo profile from a few years ago had "unmarried", I think), but for obvious reaasons I figured a guy who wore a gun to work might keep his private life out of the papers.
Anyway, a few days ago I was going to offer a joke that this had nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with Bush's position on gay marriage. However, I figured I would be accused of hideous rumor-mongering, etc. Good taste prevailed -don't get accustomed to it.
But then Krugman quoted Wolf Blitzer as saying about Clarke "that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well".
So I am feeling prescient. Appalled, and I am kidding about gay marriage, but prescient.
Anyway, yes, if a raving fool like me can keep a thought like that to himself, I would expect the higher-ups on the RAM to do so as well.
Posted by: TM | March 30, 2004 at 09:49 PM
Why do people persist with claiming contradictions between Clarke the White House surrogate and Clarke himself? As a surrogate he is promoting the administration postition. What Clarke says now doesn't contradict himself, it contradicts the administration's position. Isn't that obvious?
Posted by: confused | March 31, 2004 at 03:53 AM
As a surrogate he is promoting the administration postition.
Ah, a new variation on the old "I was lying then, but I'm telling the truth now" ploy. And Clarke himself obviously relies on it:
"MR. RUSSERT: . . . Why should people believe you?
MR. CLARKE: Because I have no obligation anymore to spin."
Under this novel legal theory I guess Clarke could claim he wasn't talking for himself in his 2002 testimony, either? Frist was perhaps prophetic when he demurred: "Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied before Congress."
Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 31, 2004 at 07:02 AM
A late add to my thoughts on the alleged imminent outing of Clarke - so far the major media outlets seem to be Wolfe Blitzer and Paul Krugman. Krugman, with his very public platform, is now criticizing the RAM for something it hasn't even done, and may not do (God willing).
Most likely - some crank somewhere will say something and Krugman will say "Aha!". But this has the look of a smear by Krugman on the RAM.
Well, maybe - my browser is crashing, but here is the Blitzer quote:
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.
Looks like Blitzer wants to stir the pot - he is very Clarke friendly in the rest.
Posted by: TM | March 31, 2004 at 08:59 AM
Here is a Blitzer link.
And in the context Blitzer presents, we note that "weird aspects" could include something like gambling debts, a la Bill Bennett.
Or maybe he is having an affair with Valerie Plame Wilson.
Posted by: TM | March 31, 2004 at 09:22 AM