Clarke Praises Bush in Resignation Letter
1 hour, 1 minute ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The White House, seeking to cool criticism from a former top anti-terror adviser, said Tuesday that Richard Clarke's resignation letter praised President Bush (news - web sites)'s "courage, determination, calm and leadership" on Sept. 11, 2001.



"It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months," said the Jan. 20, 2003, letter from Clarke to Bush. "I will always remember the courage, determination, calm, and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th."


The letter was stamped "the president has seen" the next day.


Clarke, who left the Bush administration in March 2003 after 30 years in government service and 11 years at the White House, has written a book in which he criticizes the president and his administration for ignoring repeated warnings about al-Qaida before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and acting ineffectively afterward, primarily because of a preoccupation with Iraq (news - web sites).


On Monday, the day Clarke's "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" hit stores and the day after he promoted it in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," the White House went to great lengths to dismiss Clarke's accusations. Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), appeared on television and radio to argue that Clarke was inaccurate, politically motivated, disgruntled over bureaucratic changes that reduced his influence, merely trying to sell books — or all four at once.


That White House campaign continued Tuesday with the release of Clarke's letter announcing his intention to step down.


White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested Clarke's praise belies his later criticism of Bush's handling of the crisis.


"At this time period, when he was leaving, there was no mention of the grave concerns he claims to have had about the direction of the war on terrorism, or what we were doing to confront the threat posed by Iraq, by the former regime," McClellan said.


But the letter contains no praise of Bush's anti-terror actions before or after the attacks — only on the day of. Clarke does commend Bush for his "intuitive understanding" of the importance of cybersecurity.


Clarke's job as the White House's counterterrorism chief was split in two early in the Bush White House, with Clarke put in charge of cybersecurity and others brought in for the anti-terror role.


"You had prescience in creating the position of Special Adviser to the President for Cyberspace Security and I urge you to maintain that role in the White House," Clarke wrote.


Also, even though the White House argued that Clarke's memoir was released to do the maximum political damage to Bush in a presidential election year, McClellan would not say when the required national security review of the book was completed, allowing its publication to proceed. Publications by administration officials are routinely vetted to make sure that nothing is released that compromises classified information or national security.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...er_3&printer=1


The lies are being revealed now. This guy waited 3 years to attack Bush, after praising him when he left.

Well yeah, I can understand being civil and praisful in a resignation letter. How does that change what he's said to the media though?

He didn't have a book contract when he wrote his letter praising Bush, that's how.

Ad hominem logical fallacy. Deal with his assertions, not his possible motives for stating them.

Can you explain his obvious change of heart?

I don't have to, and I don't know all of the information, as is probably the case with you.

I'll be posting the transcript of CNN "This Morning" when it goes onto their site. A great discussion of Clarke, including the fact that he isn't a liberal peacenik.

I know he says one thing, and then the opposite, quite a lot.

HEMMER: On the roster today, George Tenet goes first today. Sandy Berger comes second. In the afternoon, getting twice the time will be Richard Clarke.

GREENFIELD: Yes, and what I think you can look for here is some very tough questioning from the Republican side of this bipartisan commission, about why for eight years the Clinton administration not respond more strongly to al Qaeda attacks. They're going to, I think, ask whether Condi Rice is accurate, when she says, look, Clarke never came to me with any specific discontents. And I think you'll see questions, again, on whether Clinton and the Bush administrations dropped the ball, with the Clinton administrations stories that they had the chance to take bin Laden into custody in the late '90s. There's a lot of stories about whether Sudan was ready to turn bin Laden over, whether the Clinton administration didn't pick up on that.

But there's going to be high drama. We have a decades-long history when these commissions and committees get going on a contentious issue, it's live. You can't tell what the script is going to be before it, and it's actually very compelling.

HEMMER: In a subscript of all that is the letter the White House put out yesterday. When Richard Clarke gave his resignation, the president very glowing terms about he felt the president acted the day of 09/11 and the days after that.

GREENFIELD: Well, on the day of 9/11, the resignation letter specifically says you were great on 9/11. That's not exactly what the book says. What interested me is this is a technique that White Houses use when somebody turns on them. Remember when Kathleen Willie accused President Clinton of personal misbehavior? One of the first things the Clinton White did was to whip out an effusive letter of praise that Kathleen Willie had sent Clinton. When people leave government, they tend to write nice letters. Very few people leave and say, you know, you're awful.

HEMMER: It's a small town.

GREENFIELD: It is a small town.

But I think the reason the White House is pushing back so hard on this is this is not a liberal left peacenik. This is one of the biggest hawks on terror through four administrations. And for him to challenge Bush on his record goes right to the heart of the re- election strategy.

HEMMER: You wonder why that letter didn't come out on Monday by the White House.

GREENFIELD: Thirty-six hours after "60 minutes," that's a pretty good turn-around time. Talk to you later. Hearings begin again right now in D.C. The testimony from George Tenet gets under way. There's Governor Kean, who chairs that commission, the 09/11 Commission. George Tenet expected top of the hour. We will take you there live when that question-and-answer question begins. Again, day two in D.C. -- Soledad.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/ltm.01.html

Quoting a liberal's opinion on the proceedings proves nothing.

What interested me is this is a technique that White Houses use when somebody turns on them. Remember when Kathleen Willie accused President Clinton of personal misbehavior? One of the first things the Clinton White did was to whip out an effusive letter of praise that Kathleen Willie had sent Clinton."


Will you dispute that this occurred?

So what? If Kathleen Willey praised him, it's relevant.

It's the same thing that happened here (with Clarke praising Bush). The letter, in itself, proves nothing. That the Bush administration is flaunting it, likewise, proves nothing.

Well, I'm off to watch Clarke speak before the 9/11 commission.

The letter proves he praised Bush for his leadership, and now is lying.

It does not prove that he's lying anymore than Willey's letter proved she was lying.

I'd think he was an idiot if he had written a letter to the equivalent of 'you suck!'

Willey's accusal had nothing to do with her job.

Clarks letter has everything to do with what he is accusing Bush of, as he references it in his letter.

He was asked a question in regards to that by the 9/11 commission and handled it well. I'll post when transcripts are up.