Tim Blair

Man, I want to be a Republican Attack Dog too. Are the health benefits good? Is the only thing I need to do to join this illustrious cabal is to question Richard Clarke?

Posted by: Sortelli at March 25, 2004 at 02:09 PM

So Mr. Dunlop thinks Mr. Clarke "drips with credibility"? Apparently, Mr. Dunlop's standards regarding honesty uses Bill Clinton as its paragon of virtue.

C.T.

Posted by: C.T. at March 25, 2004 at 03:59 PM

Mr Clarke's credibility might be shot, but his bank balance is sure going to look healthy from the book sales.

Loyalty,Duty, Honour - words that pricks like him appear to have no concept of. Bad luck duelling isn't allowed these days.

He'll get what's really coming to him.

Posted by: Razor at March 25, 2004 at 09:43 PM

Their ABC is working overtime to remind us that Clarke was a Bush advisor. No mention at all that he spent most of his time under Clinton, nooooo - that would make it look like he might have a barrow to push.

So, this guy has been "terrorism-czar" since the days of Raegan, wasn't on top of 9/11, but of course, it's all the fault of the guys who left him in charge for the last 8 months?

Riiiiiiiiight. I guess I'd be trying to spread the blame too.

Posted by: Craig Mc at March 25, 2004 at 11:38 PM

From the July 5, 2000 letter to Clarke from Christopher Shays, Chairman, House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, at
http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf (PDF file)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
[etc.]
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERAS AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
[etc.]

July 5, 2000

Mr. Richard Clarke
National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure
Protection, and Counterterrorism
Naitonal Security Council (Room 302)
Old Executive Office Building
Washington D.C. 20504

Dear Mr. Clarke:

On behalf of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, I thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to brief us concerning government-wide efforts to combat terrorism.

The requested classiied briefing was to focus on how the administration tracks terrorism-related spending within the government. The briefing should hae allowed the Subcommittee the opportunity to discuss both procedural and substantie issues concerning government-wide efforts to detect, deter, prevent, and respond to terrorist acts. My staff and I found the information less than useful.

Your briefing slides (attached) state the “National Coordinator integrates agency efforts, identifies and insures resolution of issues, and provides for crisis management coordination.” Based on this, we asked several questions.

We asked if there was an integrated threat assessment prepared. You responded this would be difficult to accomplish because of all the different threats faced by the United States. When asked if there is a comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism. You responded it was “silly” to believe a comprehensive strategy could be developed to combat terrorism. You did add a domestic preparedness plan would be develooped. And when asked how spending priorities are established, you reponded by providing a list of terrorist organizations.

Saying it is difficuilt to prepare an integrated threat assessment, belittling a question about a comprehensive strategy, and providing a list of terrorist organizations does not answer our quesitons. If there are no clear requirements or plan, how does the administration prioritize the $12.9 billion it intends to spend on combating terrorism, weapons of mass destruction preparedness, and critical infrastructure protection?

This Subcommittee has oversight responsibility and authority over matters affecting the "overall economy, efficiency and management of government operations" (Rule X, clause 1(h)(6), Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives). As such, the Subcommittee requires information from the executive branch to accomplish oversight. The information provied was less that [sic] satisfactory.

Specifically, the Subcommittee wants a written response to the following questions by July 21, 2000:

- Why is there no integrated terrorist threat assessment?
- When will a comprehensive strategic plan to combat terrorism be completed?
- How does the government prioritize government-wide spending to combat terrorism? More specifically, which office makes the final determination of how much money is given to an agency or program?

The written response can be classified or unclassified. Classified information should be provided separately to insure proper handling.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Christopher Shays
Chairman

cc: Mr. Samuel R Berger
Rep. Dan Burton
Rep. Henry Waxman
Rep. Mark Souder
Rep. Rod Blagojevich
Rep. John L. Mica
Rep. Tillie K. Fowler

Posted by: ForNow at March 26, 2004 at 07:46 AM

Hi
All this talk about Dick Clarke invites me to point out that one of Dicks friends in the Clinton
administration, Larry Johnson said this " Americans are bedevilled about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the US & that it is becoming more widespread & leathal. They are likely to think that the US is the most popular target of terrorists & they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism. None of these beliefs is based on fact. Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more leathal, the numbers say otherwise & early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the reluctance of countries such as Iraq, Syria & Libya which once eagerly backed terrorist groups to provide safe havens, funding & training. I hope for a world where facts not fiction determine our policy. While terrorism is not a vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across continents, terrorism is not the biggist security challenge confronting the US & it should not be portrayed that way." Printed NYT 10th July 2001.
Now you may think that Larry is just an Idiot & you may be right, however, he along with Dick were Clintons advisors on terrorism. For Dick to now say that it was in fact Bush was weak on terrorism is possible the BIGGIST LIE ever reported by the media in the histor of the US.
Kind regards

Posted by: Michael Casey at March 26, 2004 at 11:46 AM

There are too many contradictions in Clarkes' testimonies, too many coincidences in the timing of the release of his book, and too many facts that prove him wrong. Clarke is in this for himself, and I hope he gets his just rewards.

But that won't matter because Dick Clarke is a greedy, lying manipulator with zero compassion for the well being of his nation. He lines his pockets by catering to the delusions of the left and supporting the terrorists by undermining the government.

And since the left is hearing what it wants to hear, he gets a lot of backing. To the left, it's "proof" that they were right all along, instead of wrong, or even partially wrong.

What a crock.

Posted by: JeffS at March 26, 2004 at 12:21 PM