So how is Clarke going to handle the charge he contradicted himself?

[buycitgo]

Some threads have been started about Clarke's 'backgrounder' in 2002, in which he said stuff that apparently mimics almost word for word the junta talking points: eliminating AlQaeda, rather than rolling it back, Bush has taken a bolder stance against them than Clinton did, etc.

I heard both Angle and Bash on Fox, CNN, respectively, and the ineffably annoying Rich Lowry smirking about how Clarke has completely undermined his credibility with this newly unearthed evidence.

that said, how is Clarke going to deal with this?

is he going to bring it up himself today? I sure hope so....that's one of the few things the junta does well---inoculation---and he'd be well-served to do it today....so far he hasn't

Is he even aware of this? It just came out

I'm worried about it.....will Armitage pounce all over this, after Clarke testifies?

will he demand a chance to respond to the committee, if it's brought up after he's finished?

[Spazito]

1. Don't worry about Clarke, he knows exactly what the repub...

attack plan is and will have it covered. He was THE terrorist czar for years, there is NOTHING that he wouldn't have taken into consideration prior to writing his book.

[Options Remain]

2. real simple

All he needs to say is. "My previous statements reflected the party line of the administration I was a part of at the time."

i.e. "I lied for Bush."

TearForger

[buycitgo]

7. zactly what I said in another thread

BUT, they'll say, "Well, if he was lying then, how can we believe anything he says today?"

that's what they're basically spouting now.

I know Bush lies have no effect on media or public consumption at this point, but whenEVER a dem seems to 'flip flop,' or lie (they have no compunction using that word about dems), it becomes embedded into the RW echo chamber, and that person is FOREVER remembered as such

Kerry will forever be known as a flipflopper

it took less than a week for that one to gain traction, thanks to the media's incessant showing/commentary on those Bush attack ads

it's the way it works

just wait til after the testimony

want to bet that the CONTRADICTION will be the storyline, rather than the substance to which he testified?

if it IS, you'll know the way the media storyline will be set concerning the commission coverage

hope it doesn't happen this way, but, given past media performance, that's my guess

[formernaderite]

8. I don't see how Kerry is effected by this, unfortunately....

...this election will once again be held hostage by the league of uniformed "Independant" voters, who make up their mind five minutes before the polls close. Can you say October surprise?

[buycitgo]

11. just used Kerry as an example of how they work

they did the same thing to Gore, to Clinton, to Dukakis, even to Carter, during his campaign, even. they went after Carter even more forcefully after his election. his own party was complicit: ask Tweety--Tip ONeill, his boss then, was one of the WORST. read "Liberty Under Seige," by Walter Karp, if you want to know what happens when someone in "power" tries to make real, structural changes.

do you know what the centerpiece of Carter's policy was going to be, upon assuming "power?"

what they did to him tells all you need to know about who really runs things in this country, and it has DIRECT relevance to what's going down as we sit here

[buycitgo]

12. see what I mean?

flip

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1279369&mesg_id=1279369

flop

[annxburns]

3. He will handle it just fine ...

.... This really shows the desperation of the Bushies. I would not trust a "backgrounder" from Fox News as far as I could throw it.

They will try and try to discredit this guy - but I think he will stand up to the fire. It is not one individual but many coming forward that will do Bush in. Drip, Drip, Drip ....

All he has to say is "At the time I was with the administration and I repeated their talking points to the press. I finally had to leave the administration and blow the whistle. America and the families of the victims of 9-11 need to know the truth."

[samsingh]

4. easy

the whole nation was coming together to fight terrorism in 2002.

[samsingh]

5. easy

the whole nation was coming together to fight terrorism in 2002.

[Junkdrawer]

6. "So, How will Fox handle the charge that they contradict the truth?"

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

[buycitgo]

9. I agree.......skimmed that article.....BUT

this kind of sound-bitey garbage fits perfectly with pug propaganda techniques

"Clarke lied"

"Clarke contradicted himself"

"Clarke can't be trusted"

contrast that with a long, involved story like the one you cite.

Kerry is in the same dilemma on his voting record, unfortunately

what they need to do is get off the defensive, and continue to take the offense, just as the thugparty does.

that said, I hope the above posts are correct, and that this is just a tempest in a Washington toiletbowl

[kckc]

10. spinning...dizzy...confused...

so, if he agreed with the Bush administration to begin with, say the repukes, wasn't he then "in the loop"? But..but..but..Mr. Cheney says Clarke was out of the loop. In. Out. In. Out. Spinning...dizzy...confused...

[maddezmom]

13. he's answering the question right now n/t

[buycitgo]

14. is he talking about it now?

listening/typing

[buycitgo]

15. my fat ugly antique collecting former governor is the hit man!

big Jim Thompson is going after him RIGHT now on his fox-revealed backgrounder

listen in

[maddezmom]

16. Clarke: wasn't ask to lie

was asked to highlight the postives and minimize the negatives

[buycitgo]

17. hahaha! incompetent former prosecutor violates first law of interrogation

not knowing the answers to the questions you're asking

Clarke has stopped him in his tracks in several areas, involving appropriations, policy making, and one other that I missed as I type

he's holding his own, maybe coming out ahead on points, heh

[skeptic9]

18. It's the White House that's flip-flopped on reasons for delaying ...

... counterterrorism policy decisions, not Richard Clarke.

Did Condi head arduous development of a "new" plan against Iraq, one that took until 9/4/01 to work through and get approved?

Until today, that had been the White House response to Clarke's charges of unnecessary delay in antiterrorism decisions They allegedly were moving as fast as they could to remedy inaction by the previous Administration.

Today, the Republican spin machine has reversed itself by trotting out an August 2002 press briefing by Clarke himself.

Kerry's remarks ... at the beginning of Tenet's testimony this morning (Wednesday March 24th) help in understanding the "contradiction" Thompson and the 9-11 Commission Republicans are alleging against Richard Clarke:

KERREY: "Well, Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, say for the record, since Dr. Rice is not going to be here in this -- yesterday we heard both Secretary Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld refer to the failure of the Clinton administration to deliver a plan dealing with Al Qaida, and they'd spent seven or eight months developing their own plan.

I was briefed this morning on that plan. And I would say, fortunately for the administration, it's classified because there's almost nothing in it. It calls for more diplomacy. It calls for increased pressure. Basically the same thing that Director Tenet just talked about, using tribals against Al Qaida. And lastly, calls for some vague things to try to oust Mullah Omar.

I mean, it's not, in my judgment, what it was sold to be. And I have to say that for the record. I would love to get Dr. Rice in front of this commission in the public to have her answer a series of questions about that ... (APPLAUSE)"

From the running transcript at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html

Thus he "new" plan it took 8 months for Dubya's national security team to come up with really was nothing new, just as Clarke told Andrea Mitchell in August 2002. And the White House must come up with ANOTHER explanation why it took no action against terrorism through 8 months of dire warnings about a major al Qaeda attack inside the US.