CHAIR-WARMER ON THE HOT SEAT Thu Mar 25, 7:02 PM ET By Ann Coulter Are you sitting down? Another ex-government official who was fired or demoted by Bush has written a book that ... is critical of Bush! Eureka! The latest offering is Richard Clarke's new CBS-Viacom book, "Against All Enemies," which gets only a 35 on "rate a record" because the words don't make sense and you can't dance to it. As long as we're investigating everything, how about investigating why some loser no one has ever heard of is getting so much press coverage for yet another "tell-all" book attacking the Bush administration? When an FBI (news - web sites) agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton (news - web sites) wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever." "Larry King Live" and NBC's "Dateline" abruptly canceled their scheduled interviews with Aldrich. Aldrich was mentioned on fewer than a dozen TV shows during the entire year of his book's release -- many with headlines like this one on CNN: "Even Conservatives Back Away From Aldrich's Book." That's almost as much TV as Lewinsky mouthpiece William Ginsburg did before breakfast on an average day. (Let's take a moment here to imagine the indignity of being known as "Monica Lewinsky's mouthpiece.") But a "tell-all" book that attacks the Bush administration gets the author interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" (two segments), CNN's "American Morning" and ABC's "Good Morning America" -- with an "analysis" by George Stephanopoulos, no less. In the first few days of its release, Clarke's book was hyped on more than 200 TV shows. In contrast to Aldrich's book, which was vindicated with a whoop just a few years later when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, many of Clarke's allegations were disproved within days of the book's release. Clarke claims, for example, that in early 2001, when he told President Bush (news - web sites)'s National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) about al-Qaida, her "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." (If only she used botox like Sen. Kerry!) Sean Hannity has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization. But in deference to our liberal friends, let's leave aside the facts for now. Just months before Clarke was interpreting Dr. Rice's "facial expression," al-Qaida had bombed the USS Cole (news - web sites). Two years before that, al-Qaida bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In fact, al-Qaida or their allies had been responsible for a half dozen attacks on U.S. interests since Clinton had become president. (Paper-pusher Clarke was doing one heck of a job, wasn't he?) In the year 2000 alone, Lexis-Nexis lists 280 items mentioning al-Qaida. By the end of 2000, anyone who read the paper had heard of al-Qaida. It is literally insane to imagine that Condoleezza Rice had not. For Pete's sake, even The New York Times knew about al-Qaida. Rice had been a political science professor at Stanford University, a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies. She had written three books and numerous articles on foreign policy. She worked for the first Bush administration in a variety of national security positions. All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida." Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas (news - web sites)! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us. Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education? Or did he think Dr. Rice was cleaning the Old Executive Office Building at night before the president chose her -- not him -- to be national security adviser? If a Republican ever claimed the "facial expression" on Maxine Waters -- a woman whose face is no stranger to confusion or befuddlement -- left the "impression" that she didn't understand quantum physics, he'd be in prison for committing a hate crime. As we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag -- you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?"
"This is nonsense and you should know it. The CIA's assessment on Iraq's WMD program was consistent with every other major country's intellignece service. It was consistent with that used during the Clinton administration, and various members of that administration are on record years before saying exactly what Bush said regarding Iraq. Indeed, even a pacifist like Kerry said something along those lines. There is no evidenc whatsoever that Bush made up these claims, and loads of evidence to the contrary." *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Beltway, I'm afraid that you have no idea of just how wrong you are about the above statement. It is totally FALSE. And here's why: There was an "Analysis by Subtraction" when it came to the intelligence failures regarding the assessment of Iraq's WMD programs. A hypothetical example goes something like this: Iraq had listed 50,000 liters of sarin nerve gas in 1995. The UN is known to have destroyed 35,000 liters of this. Subsequently, US bombing destroyed another 5,000 liters of this. Therefore, QED, they have 10,000 liters of sarin. Yet, there is no consideration given to the shelf life of sarin, what would be necessary to keep sarin active, where it would be stored, how it would be stored, the correct temperature, etc. Instead, it is " We think they had this and here is the inventory" . . . or " We think they destroyed this much" . . . or "We know we destroyed that, and so the difference , we assume, is there" Thus, my point is that you don't start a war based on an assumption, and with the sophisticated collection devices the US intelligence apparatus has, it is unconscionable not to have verified that so they could say, " Yes sir, we know that it's there, we can confirm it this and that way." Instead, it was an Analysis by Subtraction. Meanwhile, the analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency who also happen to share this ethic of seeking the truth, in September of 2002 put out a memo saying that there is no reliable evidence to suggest that the Iraqis have biological or chemical weapons, or that they are producing them. The CIA didn't buy into any of this stuff about Iraq possessing chemical and biological weapons at this time, either. Check your facts. The CIA didn't see it, and neither did the DIA. So how was the Bush Administration going to sell it to Congress? Remember the Aluminum Tubes on the 24th of September? That's right. The British front-paged it. The NY Times front-paged it. These were the tubes that our National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as soon as the report came out to be only suitable for use in nuclear application. Remember? These were the tubes that were "suitable only for uranium-enrichment centrifuges," said Miss Rice. However, the tubes were inspected by the Department of Energy Labs and they just about laughed their asses off when it came to trying to make a connection between a nuke program and conventional rockets. They basically said, "Let Iraq try to use these tubes for a nuclear program because they will never work." Ok, so much for Condi Rice's initial foray into the sciences. So what else could the administration come up with to use as the basis for rallying the public around a campaign to invade Iraq? How about the reports earlier in the year about how Iraq was trying to get Uranium from Niger? Yeah, that's the ticket. But if George Tenet had been there, he would have said that those reports were forgeries and stunk to high heaven. And how long would it be before people found out that they were forgeries, anyhow? Perhaps a day or two? So the Bush Administration puts all of these reports together and uses them to brief Congress and to raise the specter of a mushroom cloud. Even the President chimed-in getting the propoganda bandwagon going on October 7th, saying that "Our smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." And then Condi Rice went on to say the exact same thing the very next day! Victoria Clarke said exactly the same thing on the 9th of October, and of course the vote came on the 11th of October. Talk about a "railroad" job. But if you don't believe me about all of this, just take Henry Waxman's word on it. Waxman wrote the President on March 17th with a very bitter letter in which he said, "Mr. President, I was lied to. I was lied to. I was briefed on a forgery, and on the strength of that I voted for war. Tell me how this kind of thing could happen?"
Also, let me take a moment to refresh your memory about the Niger Report that was "forged". Remember Pat Roberts, the Republican Senator from Kansas, who was then Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Well, when the Niger forgery was unearthed and when Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that it was indeed a forgery, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on that committee went to Pat Roberts and said they really needed the FBI to take a look at this. After all, this was known to be a forgery and ws still being used on Congressman and Senators. Pat Roberts said no, that would not be appropriate. So Rockefeller drafted his own letter, and went back to Roberts and said he was going to send the letter to FBI Director Mueller, and asked if Roberts would sign onto it. Roberts said no, that would be inappropriate. So, what the FBI Director eventually got wa a letter from one Minority member saying pretty please, would you maybe take a look at what happened here, because we there there may have been some skullduggery. Surprise! The answer that he got from the Bureau was a brush-off. Now why even mention that? Cause this is the same Pat Roberts who is going to lead the investigation into what happened in this issue. Hmmmm.... The same Pat Roberts who told a member of the press that the evidence on WMD was very persuasive. The press member asked Roberts to tell him more about that, and Roberts said, "Well, Truck A was observed to be going under Shed B, where Process C is believed to be taking place." So the press guy asked Roberts if he actually found that to be persuasive, and Pat Roberts replied, "Oh, these intelligence folks, they have these techniques down so well, so yeah, this is very persuasive." Thank you very much Senator, and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Jesus F-ing Christ!!!
His best "TV show appearance" yet was perhaps the congressional hearing with the 9/11 comittee ? Personally I liked the expression on the face of the White House representative when he was caught "lying"/FUD'ing on "60 minutes" about any encounter between Clarke and Bush where Bush insisted on looking for links to Iraq for 9/11. Shame on him for being such an opportunist that he dared to even apologize to the victims of 9/11. The personal vendetta was surely in planning during the last few years he was on the Bush staff, or perhaps sometime earlier during his 30 year career. (ironic)
I think the general objections revolve, not around the "facts" available to the intelligence organizations, but how they were used and portrayed. Omissions and enhancement of favourable "facts" always makes for good smoke-and-mirror tactics. The media was not totally innocent in all of this, focusing on the breaking "big story", and dribbling over the journalistic opportunities in the Iraq invation. Everyone got played as suckers, and pressure was snowballing every day. Former US weapons inspector David Kay and former anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke effectively broke those mirror and cleared the smoke in my opinion. With some luck most US voters will conclude similarily.
So, in recapping the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq, and the "prostituting" of the CIA we have an invasion that is based upon: 1.) Aluminum Tubes that the Dept. of Energy laughed at. and 2.) Forged reports about Uranium coming from Niger. I got to hand it to the Bush Administration. Their propaganda machine rivaled that of the Third Reich and Hermann Goebbels during World War II. Unreal.
Does the ET Bush Defense Team really beleive that the White House went to war in Iraq over WMD? The White House has even backpedaled from this assertion, saying that they emphasized that for propaganda purposes. And that getting an American stronghold in the Middle East, with a democratization movement begun in Iraq, was critical in pursuing Islamic based terror. I think the latter is fundamentally correct. The entire cast of characters in the top tier of the current administration called for regime change (by way of invasion) as early as 1997. So come off it, WMD was not the main issue, and WTC was the casus belli. If the Bushies used the WMD proliferation criterion as primary, then Pakistan is next, as well as N. Korea. So where's the beef. Bush decided he had to dumb down the reasons for going into Iraq for the public (did anyone see his evening speech February 03, a masterpiece of nuance and profundity), and it seems that Ann Coulter and her lapdogs here on ET were listening intently. For the Americans to succeed in the Middle East and in the Muslim community in general, the President today and over the next 2 generations has to be a respected leader, a benevolent and firm paternal figure of sorts for the Arabs and Muslims. Bush understands this, and his recent speech about 2 weeks ago was clearly written with this understanding of the psychological aspect of leadership. It is as important that this country gain leadership respect from the Middle East as it is to hunt down the terrorists. Arab Muslim cultures have had their men humiliated and disempowered by thier own corrupt leaders, and the religious leadership has siezed on this to teach religious based hatred and let the militants exploit young men.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040326/ap_on_go_co/clarke_congress&printer=1 GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent WASHINGTON - Key Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the war on terror. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor. The Tennessee Republican said he hopes Clarke's testimony in July 2002 before the House and Senate intelligence committees can be declassified. Then, he said, it can be compared with the account the former aide provided in his nationally televised appearance Wednesday before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The development marked the latest turn in a Republican counterattack against Clarke, who has leveled his criticism against Bush in a new book as well as in interviews and his sworn testimony before the bipartisan commission. In his testimony, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks. Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) had undermined the war on terror. In a sharply worded speech, Frist said that Clarke himself was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center. Additionally, he accused Clarke of "an appalling act of profiteering" by publishing a book that relied on access to insider information relating to the worst terrorist attacks in the nation's history. He also accused him of making a "theatrical apology" to the families of the terrorist victims at the outset of his appearance on Wednesday, saying it was not "his right, his privilege or his responsibility" to do so. "Mr. Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct â but that is all," he said. One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the initial request for declassification was made by House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee. Frist, without elaborating, said Clarke's testimony in 2002 was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration." Frist also noted that Clarke, appearing as an anonymous official, had praised the administration's actions in an appearance before White House reporters in 2002. Clarke on Wednesday dismissed that appearance as the fulfillment of the type of request that presidential appointees frequently receive. But, Frist said, "Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied to Congress." No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA (news - web sites) and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public. Without mentioning the congressional Republicans' effort, White House spokesman Scott McClellan continued the administration's criticism of Clarke on Friday. "With every new assertion he makes, every revision of his past comments, he only further undermines his credibility," McClellan told reporters. Asked about Bush's personal reaction to the criticism from a former White House aide, McClellan said, "Any time someone takes a serious issue like this and revises history it's disappointing."
Slamma: >If the Bushies used the WMD proliferation criterion >as primary, then Pakistan is next, as well as N. Korea. >So where's the beef. I agree with wholeheartedly with your post *other* than the above. The reason that N. Korea and Pakistan must be dealt with differently than Iraq is because they've GOT the nukes already. Apples and oranges -- or nukes and hand grenades. JB