TRANSCRIPT of Clarke questioning by Jim Thompson (R-IL)

[skeptic9]

Note that Jim Thompson does such a poor job of "prosecuting" Clarke that Chairman Kean (R-NJ) cuts him short!

"THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?

CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading.

The press briefing you're referring to comes in the following context: Time magazine had published a cover story article highlighting what your staff briefing talks about. They had learned that, as your staff briefing notes, that there was a strategy or a plan and a series of additional options that were presented to the national security adviser and the new Bush team when they came into office. Time magazine ran a somewhat sensational story that implied that the Bush administration hadn't worked on that plan. And this, of course, coming after 9/11 caused the Bush White House a great deal of concern.

So I was asked by several people in senior levels of the Bush White House to do a press backgrounder to try to explain that set of facts in a way that minimized criticism of the administration. And so I did. Now, we can get into semantic games of whether it was a strategy, or whether it was a plan, or whether it was a series of options to be decided upon. I think the facts are as they were outlined in your staff briefing.

THOMPSON: Well, let's take a look, then, at your press briefing, because I don't want to engage in semantic games. You said, the Bush administration decided, then, you know, mid-January -- that's mid- January, 2001 -- to do 2 things: one, vigorously pursue the existing the policy -- that would be the Clinton policy -- including all of the lethal covert action findings which we've now made public to some extent. Is that so? Did they decide in January of 2001 to vigorously pursue the existing Clinton policy?

CLARKE: They decided that the existing covert action findings would remain in effect.

THOMPSON: OK. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. Now, that seems to indicate to me that proposals had been sitting on the table in the Clinton administration for a couple of years, but that the Bush administration was going to get them done. Is that a correct assumption?

CLARKE: Well, that was my hope at the time. It turned out not to be the case. ...

THOMPSON: ... The principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold. Did they authorize the increase in funding five-fold?

CLARKE: Authorized but not appropriated. ...

CLARKE: ... Those three things which you mentioned were approved by the principals. They were not approved by the president, and therefore the final approval hadn't occurred until after September 11th.

THOMPSON: But they were approved by people in the administration below the level of the president, moving toward the president. Is that correct?

CLARKE: Yes, so over the course of many, many months, they went through several committee meetings at the sub-Cabinet level. And then there was a hiatus. And then they went to finally on September 4th, a week before the attacks, they went to the principals for their approval. Of course, the final approval by the president didn't take place until after the attacks.

THOMPSON: Well is that eight-month period unusual?

CLARKE: It is unusual when you are being told every day that there is an urgent threat. ...

KEAN: Governor, one more question.

THOMPSON: So you believed that your conference with the press in August of 2002 is consistent with what you've said in your book and what you've said in press interviews the last five days about your book?

CLARKE: I do. I think the think that's obviously bothering you is the tenor and the tone. And I've tried to explain to you, sir, that when you're on the staff of the president of the United States, you try to make his policies look as good as possible.

THOMPSON: Well, with all respect, Mr. Clarke, I think a lot of things beyond the tenor and the tone bother me about this.

KEAN: Thank you, Governor. Commissioner Gorelick...."

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

[xray s]

1. And this is the MSNBC sound bite

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, as we sit here this afternoon, we have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?

CLARKE: Well, I think the question is a little misleading. The press briefing you're referring to comes in the following context


That's it. :grr:

[buycitgo]

4. of course.....what do you expect?

I don't think (hope?) they'll be able to get this particular toothpaste back in the bottle

also, did you see it?

Thompson was CLEARLY at a loss with his last statement about tenor/tone, and literally moved away from the mic as he said it, looking like a chastised little girlyboy, slinking away, while trying to get a last word in

very revealing

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. Thompson questions and Clarke's answers sank the bushco *admin!!!!

Thompson is fucked and gonna get a new rectum compliments of rovebush*...hehehe

[jean]

3. Thompson had two attempts at that line of questioning and the second

time he even waggled his head a little and sounded a bit sarcastic. Clarke had no trouble handling him.

When Thompson exited the misery saying "Well, with all respect, Mr. Clarke, I think a lot of things beyond the tenor and the tone bother me about this," Clarke fixed his eyes on Thompson, not making a face, just leveling his intense eyes on the guy.

[buycitgo]

5. the second exchange was even better........

certifying fatboy as insane for perseverating the way he did

well, at least a masochist

wonder if he was FORCED to do his coda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1280383

[skeptic9]

6. Thompson was a LEGENDARY prosecutor in Illinois. At least that's what...

his handlers said when he was running for governor. How the mighty have fallen! I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when Rove gave Kean and the other Republicans their marching orders for the day. Thompson would have been the first choice for the role of the heavy in questioning Clarke.

Clarke threw everybody off with his abject apology to the families of 9/11 victims and then his quick launch into fielding questions with essentially no opening statement. After that, he did not even break a sweat in making Thompson look foolish.

Bravo! Do you think Clarke got advice beforehand from Clinton or Carville?

[buycitgo]

7. advice doesn't help (much) in those situations

you either have the fortitude (not to mention the TRUTH) to handle it, or you don't

Clarke clearly did, and fatso did NOT; never, ever did

[Lex]

8. Clarke's testimony was a thing of beauty.

He was very sincere in his apology to the 9/11 widows and family members.

And that apology totally turned the tables on those like Thompson who thought they'd be able to ravage him.

Clarke is more than a few IQ points smarter than the repukes on that panel questioning him today. It was obvious.

[skeptic9]

9. He was much better prepared for their questions than they were for...

... his answers, that's for sure. I bet Thompson's career will be affected: No Supreme Court for you, Big Jim!

[Berserker]

10. Thompson is not even part of the smirk regime

I think if he could force a smile between his sarcastic remarks his face would crack the RW prick.