My Brief and Snide Analysis
Last night I watched Richard Clarke on "Meet The Press" and was impressed by Richard Clarke's even-tempered, stale responses as he avoided answering some of Tim Russert's questions and lied to America on national TV. Does he really believe that Americans are that stupid? Especially about how he had nothing to do with timing of the book release during the 9/11 hearings and how money wasn't a motive. Link, excerpts, and my comments below.
Meet The Press, Transcript for March 28:
MR. RUSSERT: Now, when you resigned, you sent a very polite letter to the president: "It's been an enormous privilege to serve you these past 24 months. I will always remember the courage, determination, calm leadership you demonstrated on September 11. I thank you again for the opportunity to serve you. You have provided me"--was that just being polite?
MR. CLARKE: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Or are you now just being disloyal?
MR. CLARKE: No. Well, my mother taught me to be polite...
Yes, I was being polite and 'no' I wasn't being disloyal? Great way for Russert to frame the question because if he was just being "polite" then he was being disloyal by slandering President Bush in the media and through his book after serving him in his appointed position. Clarke tries to get out of this dilemma by starting with a displacement on his mother, "Well, my mother taught me to be polite..." What does that mean? Well... well, my mother told me not to be mean and disloyal, but I did it anyway? Almost good, but not good enough Mr. Clarke. You are disloyal and a disgrace to public servants in the U.S.
MR. RUSSERT: But you were turned down for the number-two job at Homeland Security?
MR. CLARKE: No, I wasn't turned down for it. What happened was the White House was developing lists of people to consider for various jobs. And I said, "If you want to consider me, fine. I've been working on homeland security issues for five years."
MR. RUSSERT: Did you interview for it?
MR. CLARKE: I was interviewed for it. Am I disgruntled about it? No.
Now his pride comes out. A very prideful man, but not surprising if you saw him during the 9/11 hearings and this interview. Very smug attitude and arrogance. Yes, Dick, you were turned down. If you were interviewed (good question by Russert) and you didn't get the position, then you were turned down. Hahahaha... Even his response gives it away since he didn't say that he got the position and rejected it but just says that he is not disgruntled about it.
MR. RUSSERT: Publishers Weekly in January said that your book would come out, as it shows on the screen here, on April 27. It was then released the day before the September 11th Commission hearings. Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I left the White House in February. I started working on the book in March. It's the first time I ever wrote a book. It turns out it's a lot harder to write a book, Tim, than it is to write government memos; had to do a lot of research, and I didn't have any access to my government files. I didn't have any classified papers. So I finished the book in October and had to turn it in to the White House for them to approve it. As a former White House official, your books have to be approved by the White House. And the White House took a very long time to approve my book. As soon as the book was approved by the White House in February, I gave it to the publisher and it was out of my hands after that. The publisher got it out as fast as they could. Our original intention was to...
MR. RUSSERT: Because the White House delayed publication. You had scheduled April 22.
MR. CLARKE: No, I hadn't scheduled anything.
MR. RUSSERT: The publisher had. You moved it up by more than a month to coincide with the hearings?
MR. CLARKE: I didn't. Tim, I turned the book in in February. I have no control over what Publishers Weekly says or when the printing presses are available. I wanted it to be a Christmas book. And I turned it in time for it to get out at Christmas had the White House not sat on it in the White House approval process.
"Was the book released, accelerated and timed for maximum exposure before those hearings?"
He didn't even answer this question. He avoided the question because his primary answer does not make sense, which Russert pointed out. What does the White House being late on the approval process have to do with him and his publishers getting the book out early from the stated date of April 22nd? Bawhahahaha... cracking a little, Dick? Of course you put it out right before the 9/11 hearings to get maximum exposure. Just admit it, so you don't seem more evil. Greed is one thing, but deception just adds more to your poor character and Gollum-like personality.
MR. RUSSERT: And, again, this has become part of the controversy. Again, Senator Frist went to the Senate floor and let's listen:
(Videotape, March 26, 2004):
SEN. FRIST: Assuming the controversy around this series of events does, in fact, drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make a lot of money, a lot of money for exactly what he has done. I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on September the 11th, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce, I think, any plan to personally profit from this book.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: The book is dedicated to those who were murdered on September 11 and you apologize to the families. Would you consider giving the royalties or profits from the book to the children of those families who were murdered?
MR. CLARKE: Tim, long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make a substantial contribution, not only to them but also to the widows and orphans of our Special Forces who have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when we see the results of the book sales, we'll know how much we have to make donations. I also have to consider the fact that friends of mine in the White House, because I still have friends in the White House, having worked there for 11 years, are telling me that the word is out in the White House to destroy me professionally. One line that somebody overheard was "he's not going to make another dime again in Washington in his life." So I have to take that into account, too, this sort of vicious personal attack is also directed at my bank account. But this is not about me making money. It's about getting the truth out. And long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make substantial donations, and I will make substantial donations.
Again, what's "substantial?" Here Russert should have pushed and asked what do you mean by "substantial?" A few thousand? Hundreds of thousand? Millions? He should have gotten him to make a commitment there. I didn't expect him to say that he will give it all of it away since he's driven by money, but his additional excuse made me sick. He talked about "one line that somebody overheard" how people in the White House are not going to allow him to make another dime. He said that he has to take this into account? Nice excuse to cover your greed. Call Soros and I bet he would hire you in a flash. Please, Dick, how stupid do you think we are? How many think tanks with fat paychecks can you work for now? Especially Democratic ones that will reward you for making a key attack on Bush's campaign and administration? Do the honorable thing and give up all the profits of this partisan book and give it to the families of the victims of 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore.
MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.
MR. RUSSERT: In 2004 you'll vote for John Kerry?
MR. CLARKE: I'm not going to endorse John Kerry. That's what the White House wants me to do. And they want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign. I've already pledged I'm not part of the Kerry campaign and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.
MR. RUSSERT: Will you vote for him?
MR. CLARKE: That's my business.
Great post in Powerline about his response:
Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics sent us this email on Richard Clarke's deceitful claim of political neutrality:
My ears nearly fell off when I heard Dick Clarke say he voted for Al Gore on Meet the Press today, since I thought I heard him say he voted for Bush on Thursday. Turns out I was wrong, Clarke only misled me (and probably many others including members of the 9/11 Commission) into believing that. Here are the quotes:
Sunday on Meet the Press:
Russert: Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
Clarke: No I did not.
Russert: Did you vote for Al Gore?
Clarke: Yes I did.
Wednesday Before the 9/11 Commission: Clarke: "Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot."