Thursday, November 18, 2004


Richard Clarke's testimony has been released by the joint Select Committee on Intelligence which confirmed what objective, rationale people knew already... that he's a liar. Power Line's Hindrocket has more:

It has been widely speculated that the Democrats will use Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing as an opportunity to resurrect the charge that she failed to heed warnings about al Qaeda given by Richard Clarke during the transition from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. The point would not be to refuse to confirm her, but to once again use Clarke's charges to discredit both Rice in particular and the Bush administration in general.

We have repeatedly critiqued Clarke's baseless attacks on the Bush administration, which grew out of his disagreement with the administration's policy on Iraq. Examples are "Richard Clarke, Fraud," "Clarke Takes a Beating," and "Richard Clarke, Liar." If you search our site, you will find many other posts discussing Clarke's fictitious charges.

Clarke's credibility has long been in tatters, but the final blow was delivered today when the joint Select Committee on Intelligence released the transcript of his testimony before that committee on June 11, 2002. Clarke's testimony, with only slight redactions for security reasons, can be accessed here.

Clarke's testimony is completely devoid of any suggestion that he delivered any warning of any kind to Rice or any other member of the Bush administration, let alone any claim that any such warning was disregarded. In fact, what is notable about Clarke's appearance before the Joint Committee is that the Bush administration was scarcely mentioned at all. There was a great deal of discussion about what happened during the Clinton administration, and Clarke generally tried to defend Clinton against criticism. But, with a single exception noted below, not even the most partisan Democrats on the committee, like Nancy Pelosi, tried to suggest that there was anything the Bush administration could or should have done differently during the brief time it was in office prior to September 11, 2001.
(full post)

No comments: