Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't think that's actually what Clarke is saying now, either. I'd interpret his beef differently than Ty did in that statement.
Also -- the facts cited in the Fox transcript that you linked to seem to be consistent with the facts Clarke sets forth now. (At least those in the first several paragraphs -- all that I read.) The difference seems to lie in his interpretation of those facts -- which I suppose is a legitimate subject for comment.
|
I also don't see much in there that directly contradicts what he is currently saying, aside from the fact that he isn't so openly critical of the admin. Which would have been a pretty funny thing to do in a background briefing.
Quote:
|
OTOH, one would expect someone testifying on behalf of the Bush Administration -- as Clarke apparently was in August 2002, to put forward the perspective of the administration. I've been very tangentially involved (an observer actually) in preparing witnesses for testifying before Congress -- and I assure you that they don't wing it. The statements are vetted up and down the ladder.
|
Clarke said something much the same in his testimony today, that he was told to accentuate the positive and downplay the negative, or something like that.
In my view it's a BS move to release a background briefing by an admin official when it serves the president's interests, but at the same time refuse to let the national security advisor testify to the commission trying to get to the bottom of 9/11.
I've only got the audio webcast, so I should allow for the possibility that he's wearing a turban and carrying an AK-47 at the witness table, but Clarke sounds pretty credible today under some pointed questioning.
