Brookes on Clarke (Phillips and O'Neille redux)

[Moses]

www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/opinion/27BROO.html?amp;ei=5062&en=b9a2d874890b9df0&partner=GOOGLE&ex=1081054800&pagewanted=print&position=
------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 27, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST

See Dick Spin
By DAVID BROOKS

Excerpt:

It should be said that Clarke used to be capable of the sort of balanced analysis contained in these reports. Indeed, he was a major source for them. But that was the old Richard Clarke. That was the Richard Clarke who could weigh the pros and cons of the Clinton and Bush terror strategies. That was the Clarke who expressed frustration at the glacial pace of the pre-9/11 antiterror policy process, but who also, in 2001, sent out e-mail praising the White House for alerting agencies to a possible attack, and who praised the Bush team for "vigorously" pursuing the Clinton strategy while deciding to quintuple the C.I.A.'s anti-Qaeda budget.

But that wonky Richard Clarke doesn't become a prime-time media sensation or sell hundreds of thousands of books. Because in this country, we speak only one language when it comes to public affairs, the language of partisan warfare. So out goes Mr. Wonk. Clarke turns himself into an anti-Bush attack machine, and we get a case study of how serious bipartisan concern gets turned into a week of civil war.

Compared with the commission reports, Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," is as subtle as an episode of the Power Rangers. See Dick Clarke courageously take control of the government in the middle of the terror attacks! See him heroically lead a teleconference! Behold his White House conversations! Everything he says is farsighted and brave! Everything the Bushies say is incorrect. And he remembers it all perfectly!

Clarke manages to absolve Bill Clinton for many of his mistakes — or Clarke says the vast right-wing conspiracy is to blame. What about Clinton's decision not to bomb Al Qaeda's terrorist camps when we had a chance? Not a mistake, Clarke now says. We had higher priorities, like the former Yugoslavia.

All of Bush's errors, on the other hand, are magnified. Shrill passages about Bush's stupidity are inserted into Clarke's tendentious prose. In 2002, Clarke said there was "no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." But now Clinton is portrayed as the Winston Churchill of the antiterror brigades, and Bush is Neville Chamberlain.

And this week Clarke goes on a book tour and hypes it up another notch. Time's Romesh Ratnesar recently compared Clarke's book with the representations he is making of it up and down the TV dial. Ratnesar found that Clarke is sexing up his own stories to score political points.
[Be prepared for cynical laughter before reading this bit:]

So here we are in a familiar spot. Instead of talking about the bipartisan failures and systematic shortcomings of our terror policy, we're seething at one another about one man. It's the Clinton scandals and Bork hearings all over again — except this time the pretext for our hatred just happens to be security policy. Conservatives, including myself, believe that Clarke has turned himself into a mendacious glory-hound whose claims are contradictory. Liberals see him as the Erin Brockovich of the Bush years.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Clarke deserves blame for his shrill partisanship. The media deserve blame for neglecting the commission reports (The Times is an honorable exception). Most important, the administration deserves blame. Instead of focusing on the substantive commission reports and treating Clarke with the back of its hand, the Bush administration got right in the mud with him.

Meanwhile, actual policy matters get tossed about in the roiling seas. Though we never really had a discussion about it, now everybody is embracing pre-emptive action against potential terrorist threats.

[Moses]

And from another corner of the Wolfowitz Cabal, CNN had this story with HUGE HEADLINE in EXTRA BOLD!!
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/clarke.flap/

GOP: Declassify Clarke's 2002 testimony


Friday, March 26, 2004 Posted: 10:20 PM EST (0320 GMT)
Former White House aide Richard Clarke criticized Bush anti-terrorism policy this week before a bipartisan commision on 9/11 attacks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate's top Republican demanded Friday that testimony former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave before a congressional panel investigating the September 11 attacks in 2002 be declassified to determine whether he lied Wednesday to an independent commission probing the tragedy.

In a blistering floor speech, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee charged that Clarke "has told two entirely different stories under oath," and he castigated Clarke for cashing in on the 9/11 tragedy by writing a book.

"I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing on the tragedy that befell this nation on September 11th, 2001," Frist said, calling on Clarke to "renounce any plan to personally profit from this book."

At issue is testimony Clarke gave behind closed doors in July 2002 in a hearing before the House and Senate intelligence committees jointly investigating the attacks.

Frist said that during that testimony, Clarke was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration," though the majority leader provided no details.

On Wednesday, Clarke testified publicly before an independent, bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 tragedy known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and charged that the Bush administration did not focus enough on the fight against terrorism before the attacks. He also wrote a book, "Against All Enemies," that leveled the same charges, which have been vigorously disputed by a host of administration officials.

Frist's comments were the latest attempts by Republicans to challenge Clarke's credibility. But the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the joint investigation, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, expressed doubt Friday that Clarke's earlier testimony would do anything to establish that he lied under oath.

"To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week," Graham said in a statement.

After Frist made his demand, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, issued a statement saying he would also support declassification of Clarke's testimony. He said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Florida, plans to make that request.

"It is my view that Richard Clarke's testimony before the joint inquiry will shed light on the issues without compromising national security," Hastert said, adding that the independent 9/11 commission has already received Clarke's earlier testimony.

Graham, too, said he would support declassification. But he said if Clarke's testimony is released, the Bush administration should declassify it in full, rather than "selectively" editing it to only disclose material favorable to the White House.

He also said documents mentioned in Clarke's testimony should be declassified, and he pushed again for the White House to release 27 pages of the joint inquiry's final report that were held back on grounds of national security.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, who has not commented in detail on Clarke's charges, waded gingerly into the fray Friday in an interview with CBS.

"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if he's not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury, because he is under oath," Kerry said. "They have a perfect right to do that."

Kerry told CBS that he has read only "a couple of chapters" of Clarke's book and has not seen his testimony before the 9/11 panel.

"I think what he said raises very serious questions," Kerry said.

A senior Kerry adviser said the senator "thinks instead of answering the tough questions, the administration is playing scare tactics. ... Instead of answering tough questions, they're trying to tear down the messenger."

"They are clearly scared of this and want to try and quash this as quickly as possible," the adviser said. "The American people want answers, and saying Richard Clarke is a liar is not good enough."

In another development, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- who has taken the brunt of Clarke's criticism -- will appear Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes," the program where Clarke first discussed his allegations last week.

The White House offered to have Rice appear on "60 Minutes" after the program asked the White House for someone to comment on the week's developments, CBS said in a statement. The interview will be taped Sunday.

Rice has come under fire from members of the independent 9/11 commission for refusing to testify publicly before the panel. The White House maintains that it is inappropriate for her to testify because the doctrine of executive privilege precludes presidential staff members, such as Rice, from giving public testimony to panels formed by Congress.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, himself a former national security adviser, defended that position Friday.

"The president's personal staff has a unique role," Powell told "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS. "They're his intimate personal advisers, and the tradition and precedent has been ... that people in that position do not testify before the Congress."

"I know she would like to do it. She wants to tell the story, but she has to consider the precedent that would be created by this."

Rice provided more than four hours of private testimony to the 9/11 commission in February. Thursday, the White House made a formal request that the panel hold another private meeting with Rice so she can rebut Clarke's charges.

"There were clearly some statements and assertions that were made that were wrong," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday. "It's important to make sure ... that the commission has all the information they need to do their job."

CNN correspondents Kelly Wallace and Joe Johns contributed to this report.