Kerry Slams White House Attack on Clarke

Sat Mar 27, 6:06 PM ET

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - John Kerry (news - web sites) said Saturday the White House is committing character assassination with its treatment of former counterterror chief Richard Clarke to avoid responding to questions about national security.

Kerry also said Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), President Bush (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, should testify in public before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.



"If Condoleezza Rice can find time to do `60 Minutes' on television before the American people, she ought to find 60 minutes to speak to the commission under oath," Kerry told reporters. "We're talking about the security of our country."



The White House has said that presidential staff advisers, such as Rice, cannot testify publicly before congressional bodies. The bipartisan, independent commission was created in 2002 by congressional legislation and Bush's signature.



Rice has been interviewed privately by commission members.



Bush campaign spokeswoman Nicolle Devenish said Kerry and other Democrats are trying to politicize the work of the commission.



"John Kerry seeks to distract Americans from his own failed ideas for protecting America from future attacks," she said in a statement. "John Kerry's backward-looking approach would return us to the failed policies of treating terror as a law-enforcement matter."



Kerry said the constitutional separation of powers could be protected despite the White House's objections.



"Certainly we can find a way to respect executive privilege, not to have it be an opening to the door, but nevertheless to accomplish America's needs to protect the security of our country," he said.



On Clarke, Kerry said: "Every time somebody comes up and says something that this White House doesn't like, they don't answer the questions about it or show you the truth about it. They go into character assassination mode."



Besides Clarke, Kerry cited the examples of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Medicare accountant Richard Foster.



"It is entirely inappropriate and almost hysterical of the White House to engage in this massive character assassination," Kerry said later in an interview with Kansas City television station KMBC.



O'Neill was fired as Treasury secretary in December 2002 after publicly questioning the need for additional tax cuts, a core campaign issue for Bush. Foster said he was prohibited by his superiors from sharing with Congress a much higher but more accurate cost estimate for the administration's Medicare program.



Kerry said until the commission completes its report, he will comment neither on Clarke's testimony nor on whether Bush did enough to protect Americans before the attacks. Kerry, who spent much of the past week on vacation in Idaho, said he had not heard or read any of the testimony before the commission.



He nevertheless criticized the administration for having "stonewalled" the investigation. Bush originally opposed the panel's creation, then opposed its request for a two-month extension of its work, but eventually relented on both counts.

If he is such a republican, I wonder why he voted for Gore in 2000?

From Meet the Press...

Quote:MR. RUSSERT:  And we're back.  Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?

MR. CLARKE:  No, I did not.

MR. RUSSERT:  You voted for Al Gore.

MR. CLARKE:  Yes, I did.

MR. RUSSERT:  In 2004 you'll vote for John Kerry?

MR. CLARKE:  I'm not going to endorse John Kerry.  That's what the White House wants me to do.  And they want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign. I've already pledged I'm not part of the Kerry campaign and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.

MR. RUSSERT:  Will you vote for him?

MR. CLARKE:  That's my business.

Sure doesn't sound like a diehard GOP'er to me!

<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608698/' target='_blank'>Entire Meet The Press Transcript</a>

Stalin, anyone who questions or criticizes Bush or the Party is unAmerican, unPatriotic, unbelievable, unkind, unChristian, a baby-killer, al-Quayder, despotic, communist, antibusiness and an avowed Saddam lover. See, I watch Hannity too, and he spells it out for you. In America, he says, you have a choice you can be for Bush, or you can be dead. So make your choice wisely (ain't Amurca great!).

Road, so people must always be for the Party even when a candidate does not reflect the core values of the traditional Party, i.e. Bush, Rove, Rummie and Cheney?
I betcha Clarke voted for McCain in the primary, the real Republican.

Ah-ha! The current GOP, in the style of Bush more than in the style of say, Lincoln or Ike, sounds more and more like another party--one we defeated, with Ike leading the way.

Thought control: now we see what the Bush-style GOP is all about! :drink:

KlutzDio I Wrote:Road, so people must always be for the Party even when a candidate does not reflect the core values of the traditional Party, i.e. Bush, Rove, Rummie and Cheney?
I betcha Clarke voted for McCain in the primary, the real Republican.

Who you talkin to?

He's a self-avowed Republican. Believe it or not, some Republicans vote for Democrats!

Whacko, I know.

Dick Clarke's transformation
Robert Novak (archive)

March 29, 2004


WASHINGTON -- In the 1990s, hard-line national security experts outside the government regarded Richard Clarke as a rare kindred soul inside the Clinton administration. That's mainly why he alone of Bill Clinton's senior team was kept on by George W. Bush. So, how did Clarke become President Bush's scourge, taken very seriously at the White House as a threat to the re-election campaign?




The answer lies with personality rather than ideology, with personal relations rather than political strategy. Clarke is now painted as a miscreant by Republicans and as a martyr by Democrats, but he really is a super-bureaucrat accustomed to working behind closed doors who has been thrust into the public arena. Downgraded and disrespected at the Bush White House, he became an anti-Bush activist with his testimony last week, which was used to attack Bush in a television ad by the leftist Moveon.org.


Clarke had complained to friends about the Clinton administration's weakness on terrorism, and probably expected to prosper in a Republican environment. Instead, he has improbably become a leading witness for the Democratic prosecution. His past frustration with Clinton is minimized in his book ("Against All Enemies"), which excoriates Bush.


Until the past week, Clarke was best known inside Washington as one of the most skilled manipulators ever of the national security bureaucracy. He is the hero of journalist Richard Miniter's 2003 book, "Losing Bin Laden," a scathing exposure of Clinton's anti-terrorism failings. Clarke was described as "blunt, tough and unrelenting" in pursuing terrorist Ramzi Yousef, sought in the first World Trade Center bombing. "Imagine what he could have accomplished if Clinton had publicly endorsed his efforts," Miniter wrote.


Clarke was not only the hero but also obviously a prime source of "Losing Bin Laden." Miniter for the first time revealed, directly quoting Clarke, the meeting of "principals" (Cabinet-level officials) on Oct. 12, 2000, after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. The vote was 7 to 1 against an attack on Osama bin Laden. Only Clarke wanted action.


In his own book, Clarke quickly brushes off the Cole meeting that he described in detail to Miniter. Instead of complaining about Clinton's failure to come to grips with al Qaeda and bin Laden, Clarke recites what sounds like Democratic talking points. He even interprets U.S. intervention in Bosnia as having "defeated al Qaeda," adding that Clinton "had seen earlier than anyone that terrorism would be the major new threat facing America."


Clarke's experience with the Bush administration appeared to heighten his appreciation of Clinton. Whereas he had briefed Clinton, Bush was briefed by CIA Director George Tenet. Clarke found himself at "deputies" rather than "principals" meetings. The final indignity was his rejection by Secretary Tom Ridge for a high-ranking Homeland Security post.


While Clarke had worked closely with Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in bureaucratic maneuvers to further Clarke's anti-terrorist agenda, Condoleezza Rice as Berger's successor was not engaged. Clarke clearly had difficulty in relating to Rice, describing her to close associates as "shallow."


Beyond Rice, friends say, Clarke felt uncomfortable with the conservatives brought in by George W. Bush as he had not felt with George H.W. Bush's or certainly Clinton's team. The White House team is not hospitable to outsiders, and Clarke was surely an outsider.


Clarke since he left the government is described by friends as becoming much closer to Rand Beers, who succeeded him as chief terrorist official in the Bush administration. Beers shocked Washington last June when he quit his high-ranking post in the Bush administration to become Sen. John Kerry's foreign policy adviser. Since then, Clarke and Beers have been collaborating.


That Beers is a registered Democrat and Clarke says he is a registered (but never an active) Republican is inconsequential. Clarke's only political contributions in 2002 and 2004 were to two former colleagues on the Clinton National Security Council staff who are running for Congress as Democrats.


While Clarke testified under oath last week that he would not join a Kerry administration, he is now, in effect, part of the Kerry campaign. His book's publication was timed to coincide with his testimony, and his transformed posture is one of political partisan.