Abbott, Meet Costello

Richard Clarke says that ""I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one".

Too bad - with his flip-flopping, he would be a perfect fit.

On a slightly more serious note, we Boldly Predict that this week, with the Clarke book promotion and the hearings, will be the low water mark for the Bush Administration on this question of "were they thinking about al Qaeda before 9/11?". Given the varying views expressed by Clarke himself, we expect the final Commission report to be more favorable than what we heard this week. The bad news is out, and it's all upside from here.

MORE: The WaPo loves Clarke. Bah! As the mighty Shaq points out, no one ever roots for Goliath.

And this Post story by Dana Milbank is long on theatrics and almost bereft of facts. Crowds applaud, people glower and cross their arms, but the only reported difference between "Clarke Then" and "Clarke Now" is in this exchange:

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.

Is Dana Milbank reporting, or drafting a screenplay?

Fine, maybe the Milbank piece is a "give me some color" effort. But here is their front page story, which very briefly notes the Aug 2002 briefing; here is a longer story which appeared on their website Wednesday night, which does not mention the Aug 2002 briefing at all. The only reference to the Clarke credibility question is this:

Asked about his book's strong criticism of the Bush administration compared to a greater focus on shortcomings of the Clinton administration during his 15 hours of previous testimony to the Sept. 11 commission in closed session, Clarke noted that no one on the panel had asked him his opinion of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"By invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism," Clarke told the commission today.

And by invading Iraq in 2003, it became clear that the Bush team had been lax in the spring and summer of 2001? The Commission didn't get going until 2003, so Clarke should have had time for his second thoughts prior to his closed testimony.

Here is a partial transcript. Thompson questions Clarke near the end.

MORE: From the AP, at the end of the story, we get a bit of balance:

Former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton asked Clarke if there was "the remotest chance" that the attacks could have been prevented if the Bush administration had adopted his aggressive counterterrorism recommendations upon taking office in January 2001.

"No," Clarke said.

UPDATE: I haven't had the courage to open the NY Times, but Mr. Belgravitas has.

We note this, from the Times, that Clinton was distracted by impeachment (read: Evil, irresponsible Republicans). The Times does not note that President Clinton was acquitted in Feb. 1999. Did impeachment continue to distract him for the remaining two years of his term? There was time for a war in Kosovo, and intensive Palestinian peace talks. Could they have been distracting, too? Maybe terror as the top priority had other competition for the President's time.

Rich Lowry, writing in the NY Post, attempts to reconcile the Clarke of the book, the hearing, and the Aug 2002 briefing.

STILL MORE: The NY Times has two stories. Somewhat unexpectedly, I did not burst a gasket reading either of them - but I know the bias is there, darn it! Must be fatigue.

OK, from the Stevenson story:

Mr. Clarke insisted that he was telling the truth in his book and that he had told the truth to the commission. But he said that in 15 hours of private testimony to the panel, he was not asked about the American invasion of Iraq, an issue that he said framed his harsh criticism of the Bush administration.

"No one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq," he said. "The reason that I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is that by invading Iraq — something I was not asked by the commission — but by invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

Maybe I am being too generous, but his argument seems so absurd - they messed up in 2003, so I am ripping them for what they did in 2001 - that I read it as the Times providing a bit of balance.

From the Purdum story, this drew a smile, describing what happened when the Bush team took over:

Instead of action and new initiatives, the Bush administration engaged in a lengthy policy debate. Mr. Bush's aides rejected most of the Clinton administration's ideas and plans as ineffectual or too narrow.

Action first, plans later! Is that how the Times does it? Fine, maybe the Bush people talked too long, but after two years of drift, I am not sure that seven months to prepare a better plan is unreasonable.

MORE: TIME magazine notes huge gaps between Clarke the author and Clarke the television entertainer. Wait until they get ahold of Clarke from August 2002.

Comments

[HH]

The left, including Milbank, is now asking us to buy into the theatrics of his performance. Don't let silly things like facts get in the way. Either there was a plan or there wasn't. Either Bush increased the funding five-fold or he did not. Clarke has not claimed to have lied then... but these are statements of fact and cannot be brushed aside as "White House spin." Oh, wait, I see that Clarke made a dramatic statement followed by applause. Never mind, he is very credible now.

[HH]

Iraq is mentioned here, in an August article, by Beers and others but not Clarke. Instead we get:

Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan.

[TM]

Back in 2000, Clinton was worrying about the Palestinian peace process; India and Pakistan had gone nuclear in 1998; Saddam had gone un-inspected since 1998; and North Korea and Iran were ongoing puzzles.

I am not even sure that terrorism *should* have been the top priority in 2000; in an alternate universe, any of these other problems could have gone catastrophic very easily.

After the fact, we should have focussed on terror (and sold our Microsoft).

Of course, somewhere in State and Defense are folks who worked day and night on the problems above, felt under-emphasized then, and still feel under-emphasized today (OK, not the Iraq specialists). And if any of those place erupt, they will be there with an "I told you so" memo.

[Jeff]

I still haven't seen how the "inconsistencies" constitute anything other than the usual give-and-take of foreign policy. It is, after all, a magnificently complex subject.

What I find interesting is that no one on the right is considering Clarke's charges directly. Even if the guy were a rat bastard (and obviously he is not--which is part of the problem) and a waffler, that doesn't change his two most damning contentions:

1. The WH mishandled terrorism leading up to 9/11;

2. the WH knew Iraq wasn't connected to al Qaida, yet promoted a connection in the run-up to the war.

And in fact, the first contention isn't even that damning: the WH was only a few months old, and transitions are notoriously dangerous times. A simple admission akin to what Clarke has been saying all along would damage them not one whit.

Avoiding the issue is far more damaging--what is the WH hiding?

(And when Bushies go after a guy like Clarke on the credibility issue, my jaw drops...incredulous at their cynicism.)

[IceCold]

Hmm, Jeff, I think you've missed a few things. Clarke has to substantiate his contention that this admin. mishandled terrorism -- especially when he agrees that even adoption of all his own recommendations wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Simply issuing his charges isn't sufficient. Beyond the obvious truth that neither administration did enough to stop 9/11, we haven't learned anything here -- Clarke hasn't added a thing of substance to the discussion.

As to the second contention, I don't know if Clarke's actually ever made it, but if so it's a whopper even by his own emerging standards of self-contradiction. The prior admin's indictment of OBL itself contained an assertion that the Sudan pharma plant had not just AQ but Iraqi connections -- specifically links to the Iraqi chemical weapons mastermind. Moreover, the CIA didn't "know" there were no Iraq-AQ ties, but rather assessed that there was a history of such links, some of them dealing with WMD, going back a decade (DCI's letter to the Senate committee).

What's cynical about refuting the substance of unfounded criticism? The WH fact sheet and Rice's op-ed are cold, factual, and mechanical.

[Paul Zrimsek]

If Clarke's self-contradictions can be shrugged off as "the usual give-and-take of foreign policy", why can't the Administration's occasional descents into salesmanship on Iraq?

[Forbes]

Uh, Jeff,

Saying "the WH mishandled terrorism leading up to 9/11" is an opinion. Merely that 9/11 happened does not prove the statement as factual, for there is no cause and effect. Clarke's subjective opinion is just one man's opinion. Certainly there are others in the NSC, CIA, DoD, DoS, etc. that have a differing opinion. Clarke, himself, has apparently expressed different conclusions on the same matter. How seriously should we believe him when, given his rhetoric, he should have resigned in protest in the aftermath of 9/11?

Regarding point 2, it clear that the WH disagrees with the general thrust of that assertion. First, that Iraq harbored known terrorists--abu Nidal, abu Abbas, WTC I bomb maker Yasin, among others--that Iraq funded Palestinian terrorism, hosted Ansar al Islam, had many documented contacts with al Qaeda, and therefore, was viewed as a part of the global problem of terrorism.

As regards a simple admission as to what Clarke has been saying all along would require clarification: what has he been saying all along, as opposed to what he has been saying in connection with flogging his book? John Lehman seemed to go out of his way to let him clarify his prior, closed testimony with the story he's spewing now. I'd say there's more than enough to be cynical about--the man has ruined his credibility.

Worst of all for partisan Democrats, if Clarke is to be believed, he's criticizing the administration from the right, by saying the WH did not move fast enough, while the Democrats think Bush rushed us into war.

The consequence of Libya's disarmament, discovery of A.Q. Kahn's nuclear black market, and including the extent of Iran's nuclear program, can only be laid at the feet of Bush's Iraq policy--these things weren't accomplished through the multilateral efforts of the UN.

The WH may have a lot to answer for, but what has been accomplished is pretty breathtaking.

[Jeff]

Hmm, Jeff, I think you've missed a few things. Clarke has to substantiate his contention that this admin. mishandled terrorism -- especially when he agrees that even adoption of all his own recommendations wouldn't have stopped 9/11.

Icecold: Then it ought to be fairly easy to dismiss. Yet to Clarke's actual charges--that he was desperately trying to get the administration's attention--I've heard nothing. Condi's rebuttal is confused and off-point. Furthermore, the character attacks are fairly nonsensical if this guy's a whack job. Should be easy enough to provide evidence that he's a whack job. The second contention came from his book, not his testimony (or rather, his discussion of his book on 60 Minutes et al). Your refutation is not substantiated by any existing intel (though plenty of ink on the pages of NRO and others). If there's a connection between al Qaida and Iraq, point me to any US intel that shows it.

Saying "the WH mishandled terrorism leading up to 9/11" is an opinion.

Actually, it's a contention, Clarke's, and it's at the heart of the 9/11 Commission hearings. I don't know WH policy on terror from a hole in the ground (and neither, by the way, do you), but that's what Clarke, the head of counterterrorism says. So it is therefore not as easily dismissed as a Howard Dean quip.

This is actually wrong, as well:

Worst of all for partisan Democrats, if Clarke is to be believed, he's criticizing the administration from the right, by saying the WH did not move fast enough, while the Democrats think Bush rushed us into war.

Although the GOP has tried to cast "partisan Dems" as soft on terror, that's the spin, not the truth. Say whatever you will to win elections. But if you honestly believe that Democrats hope to coddle terrorists, it's time to get out of the echo chamber.

[Forbes]

John Kerry has said that terrorism has been oversold, that this administration has frightened the country about terrorism, and that it is mostly a law enforcement and intelligence gathering operation. Now you can call it soft or coddling, but I didn't. (If I've inelligently paraphrased, feel free to clarify.)

Please, enlighten us to the truth of the Dems position on terrorism.

[Jeff]

Forbes,

The Dems don't have a single position. Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich are further apart than Bush and Kerry. I think the thing the Dems agree on is that Bush wanted to invade Iraq for reasons not yet well articulated publicly. To do that, he fudged (on the WMD), exaggerated (on Saddam's threat), and lied (about the link to al Qaida). It's not the case for terrorism that's been oversold, but the Iraq invasion.

You'll find plenty of Dems who are MORE hawkish than the President on terror policy (Kerry, apparently, not among them).

[TM]

I would love to hear more about the notion that Kerry believes terror has been oversold - what does that mean, and what are the sources?