GOP Leaders Seek Release of Clarke's 2002 Testimony
Sat Mar 27, 6:48 AM ET Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!
By Charles Babington and Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writers
The Senate's top Republican called yesterday for declassifying Richard A. Clarke's testimony before a House-Senate intelligence panel two years ago to determine whether he lied, as partisan exchanges intensified over allegations leveled this week by the Bush administration's former counterterrorism chief.
In a blistering speech from the Senate floor, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Clarke "has told two entirely different stories under oath" -- first in private before Congress's joint intelligence committee in July 2002, then this week before cameras at a hearing conducted by the commission looking into the same topic, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Frist offered no specific contradictions other than to say that Clarke was "effusive in his praise" of the Bush administration's handling of terrorism matters in his 2002 testimony but was sharply critical this week.
"If he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far more serious matter" than being inconsistent with reporters, another Republican charge aimed at Clarke, who served in the White House under four presidents.
Some Democratic lawmakers who heard Clarke's testimony in both settings said they found no inconsistencies. Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record) (D-Fla.), who was co-chairman of the joint intelligence inquiry, said in a statement, "To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony [from 2002] and what Mr. Clarke has said this week." He said Clarke's 2002 testimony should be declassified "in its entirety," not in selected ways to favor the White House.
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), said: "As one of the co-chairs of the House-Senate Joint Inquiry on 9/11, the statements I heard Richard Clarke give then were consistent with what he is saying now."
Clarke did not respond to e-mails and phone calls seeking comment yesterday.
The essence of Frist's allegation was raised at Wednesday's televised 9/11 commission hearing by commissioner Fred F. Fielding, White House counsel in the Reagan administration. He told Clarke he had read the 2002 closed-door testimony and said, "I can't believe that over six hours you never expressed any concern to them that the Bush administration didn't act with sufficient urgency to address these horrible potential problems" of terrorist threats.
Clarke replied that "all the measures that I thought should have been taken were in the [counterterrorism] plan that I presented in January of 2001." He said he told the House-Senate inquiry, as he had told the commission earlier that day, that "those proposals which ultimately were adopted by the [Bush National Security Council] principals' committee took a very, very, very, long time to make it through the policy development."
When Fielding pressed him to explain why he had waited until this week to express his concerns about the lack of "urgency within the Bush administration," Clarke said that, while speaking to the 2002 joint inquiry committee, he was a member of the administration. At the time, he said, he had provided "all the facts it needed to make the conclusions which I have made about how long it took" to get the plan approved.
He told Fielding: "Sir, with all of your experience in this city, you understand as well as I do the freedom one has to speak critical of an administration when one is a member of that administration."
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) joined Frist in calling for declassifying Clarke's 2002 testimony before the joint intelligence committee. Normally a committee would send testimony to the CIA (news - web sites) for clearance, then review the requested deletions and vote on whether to release it. It was not clear last night whether one or both of the congressional panels would have to agree on declassifying the testimony.
Yesterday's remarks by Frist, a heart surgeon who typically leaves the sharpest partisan barbs to others, suggested White House concern about Clarke's allegations made this week in interviews, public testimony and a new book. Clarke, who served in the Reagan, Clinton and both Bush administrations, says President Bush (news - web sites) in early 2001 was too slow to respond to urgent warnings about the al Qaeda terrorist group. He told the commission Wednesday that the administration "saw terrorism policy as important but not urgent prior to 9/11."
Frist spokesman Robert Stevenson said aides had briefed the senator on Clarke's six hours of testimony to the joint intelligence committee in 2002. "It is absent some of the criticisms of the administration's policies" that Clarke has leveled this week, Stevenson said, but Frist has no more detailed examples of contradictory testimony.
The White House, largely consumed this week by Clarke's allegations, announced yesterday that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) will appear Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," the program on which Clarke first made his criticisms six days ago. Polls suggest large numbers of Americans have followed the controversy over Bush's handling of terrorist threats, a topic the GOP -- until this week, at least -- has considered a strong suit in Bush's reelection bid.
His likely Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), cautiously entered the debate yesterday, telling CBS's "MarketWatch" he has "read a couple of chapters" of Clarke's book. "I think he raises very, very serious questions," Kerry said. "My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if he's not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury, because he is under oath."
Since Sunday, Bush and his supporters have tried to undermine Clarke's credibility in several ways. They cited Clarke's brief praise of the president in his resignation letter and in a farewell meeting in the Oval Office. Clarke replied that he was simply being polite.
The notion of declassifying congressional testimony marks the second time that Republicans have tried to draw Clarke from anonymity to challenge his truthfulness. The White House revealed this week that Clarke was the unnamed speaker in an August 2002 press briefing that defended the administration's terrorism policy, which had been criticized in a Time magazine article. Clarke says it was part of his job then to defend the administration as best he could.
Frist's denunciation of Clarke yesterday was often searing. He called Clarke's criticisms of Bush "outrageous" and suggested they are designed mainly to sell books. He said that "the only common denominator" in 10 years of unanswered terrorist attacks against Americans "was Mr. Clarke himself, a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and shift blame."
Frist continued: "There is not a single public record of Mr. Clarke making any objection whatsoever in the period leading up to or following the 9/11 attacks. . . . If Mr. Clarke held his tongue because he was 'loyal,' then shame on him for putting politics above principle. But if he has manufactured these charges for profit and political gain, he is a shame to this government."
Sat Mar 27, 6:48 AM ET Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!
By Charles Babington and Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writers
The Senate's top Republican called yesterday for declassifying Richard A. Clarke's testimony before a House-Senate intelligence panel two years ago to determine whether he lied, as partisan exchanges intensified over allegations leveled this week by the Bush administration's former counterterrorism chief.
In a blistering speech from the Senate floor, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Clarke "has told two entirely different stories under oath" -- first in private before Congress's joint intelligence committee in July 2002, then this week before cameras at a hearing conducted by the commission looking into the same topic, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Frist offered no specific contradictions other than to say that Clarke was "effusive in his praise" of the Bush administration's handling of terrorism matters in his 2002 testimony but was sharply critical this week.
"If he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far more serious matter" than being inconsistent with reporters, another Republican charge aimed at Clarke, who served in the White House under four presidents.
Some Democratic lawmakers who heard Clarke's testimony in both settings said they found no inconsistencies. Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record) (D-Fla.), who was co-chairman of the joint intelligence inquiry, said in a statement, "To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony [from 2002] and what Mr. Clarke has said this week." He said Clarke's 2002 testimony should be declassified "in its entirety," not in selected ways to favor the White House.
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), said: "As one of the co-chairs of the House-Senate Joint Inquiry on 9/11, the statements I heard Richard Clarke give then were consistent with what he is saying now."
Clarke did not respond to e-mails and phone calls seeking comment yesterday.
The essence of Frist's allegation was raised at Wednesday's televised 9/11 commission hearing by commissioner Fred F. Fielding, White House counsel in the Reagan administration. He told Clarke he had read the 2002 closed-door testimony and said, "I can't believe that over six hours you never expressed any concern to them that the Bush administration didn't act with sufficient urgency to address these horrible potential problems" of terrorist threats.
Clarke replied that "all the measures that I thought should have been taken were in the [counterterrorism] plan that I presented in January of 2001." He said he told the House-Senate inquiry, as he had told the commission earlier that day, that "those proposals which ultimately were adopted by the [Bush National Security Council] principals' committee took a very, very, very, long time to make it through the policy development."
When Fielding pressed him to explain why he had waited until this week to express his concerns about the lack of "urgency within the Bush administration," Clarke said that, while speaking to the 2002 joint inquiry committee, he was a member of the administration. At the time, he said, he had provided "all the facts it needed to make the conclusions which I have made about how long it took" to get the plan approved.
He told Fielding: "Sir, with all of your experience in this city, you understand as well as I do the freedom one has to speak critical of an administration when one is a member of that administration."
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) joined Frist in calling for declassifying Clarke's 2002 testimony before the joint intelligence committee. Normally a committee would send testimony to the CIA (news - web sites) for clearance, then review the requested deletions and vote on whether to release it. It was not clear last night whether one or both of the congressional panels would have to agree on declassifying the testimony.
Yesterday's remarks by Frist, a heart surgeon who typically leaves the sharpest partisan barbs to others, suggested White House concern about Clarke's allegations made this week in interviews, public testimony and a new book. Clarke, who served in the Reagan, Clinton and both Bush administrations, says President Bush (news - web sites) in early 2001 was too slow to respond to urgent warnings about the al Qaeda terrorist group. He told the commission Wednesday that the administration "saw terrorism policy as important but not urgent prior to 9/11."
Frist spokesman Robert Stevenson said aides had briefed the senator on Clarke's six hours of testimony to the joint intelligence committee in 2002. "It is absent some of the criticisms of the administration's policies" that Clarke has leveled this week, Stevenson said, but Frist has no more detailed examples of contradictory testimony.
The White House, largely consumed this week by Clarke's allegations, announced yesterday that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) will appear Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," the program on which Clarke first made his criticisms six days ago. Polls suggest large numbers of Americans have followed the controversy over Bush's handling of terrorist threats, a topic the GOP -- until this week, at least -- has considered a strong suit in Bush's reelection bid.
His likely Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), cautiously entered the debate yesterday, telling CBS's "MarketWatch" he has "read a couple of chapters" of Clarke's book. "I think he raises very, very serious questions," Kerry said. "My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if he's not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury, because he is under oath."
Since Sunday, Bush and his supporters have tried to undermine Clarke's credibility in several ways. They cited Clarke's brief praise of the president in his resignation letter and in a farewell meeting in the Oval Office. Clarke replied that he was simply being polite.
The notion of declassifying congressional testimony marks the second time that Republicans have tried to draw Clarke from anonymity to challenge his truthfulness. The White House revealed this week that Clarke was the unnamed speaker in an August 2002 press briefing that defended the administration's terrorism policy, which had been criticized in a Time magazine article. Clarke says it was part of his job then to defend the administration as best he could.
Frist's denunciation of Clarke yesterday was often searing. He called Clarke's criticisms of Bush "outrageous" and suggested they are designed mainly to sell books. He said that "the only common denominator" in 10 years of unanswered terrorist attacks against Americans "was Mr. Clarke himself, a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and shift blame."
Frist continued: "There is not a single public record of Mr. Clarke making any objection whatsoever in the period leading up to or following the 9/11 attacks. . . . If Mr. Clarke held his tongue because he was 'loyal,' then shame on him for putting politics above principle. But if he has manufactured these charges for profit and political gain, he is a shame to this government."