31-03-2004, 06:00
*since Bush is trying to smear him Clarkes now goin on the offensive
Clarke challenges Rice to reveal secret emails
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1180088,00.html
>Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
>Monday March 29, 2004
>The Guardian
>
>Richard Clarke, the former terrorism adviser whose revelations threaten to
>torpedo George Bush's re-election strategy, launched a counterattack
>yesterday at a White House that he said was determined to destroy him.
>
>In a riveting television performance, Mr Clarke called on his principal
>critic and former employer, the national security adviser, Condoleezza
>Rice, to release the entire record of their emails in the months up to the
>September 11 terror attacks to prove his contention that the White House
>did not then take the threat of al-Qaida seriously.
>
>He also agreed to Republican demands to declassify testimony he gave to the
>Senate two years ago - to "prove" there were no inconsistencies. "Let's
>take all of my emails and all the memos I sent to the national security
>adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify
>all of them," Mr Clarke told NBC television.
>
>Mr Clarke's bravura presentation surprised the Bush administration. The
>decision to stand his ground could also be destructive to Ms Rice. She has
>been under intense scrutiny for a week - largely for being the focus of Mr
>Clarke's charges that the Bush government did not see al-Qaida as a
>priority before September 11, but also because she refused to testify
>before the commission.
>
>Yesterday, the commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, called for Ms Rice to
>testify in public. "We recognise there are arguments having to do with
>separation of powers. We think in a tragedy of this magnitude that those
>kind of legal arguments are probably overridden," he said. But he said he
>would not force the issue with a court order.
>
>Even leading Republican figures are criticising Ms Rice's refusal to
>appear, saying it looked as if she had something to hide. "I think she'd be
>wise to testify," said Richard Perle, a former Pentagon adviser.
>
>Further damage was inflicted yesterday in a Los Angeles Times report
>discrediting a prewar claim by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein
>had trucks capable of dispersing dangerous substances such as anthrax. The
>report claimed the information came from a single discredited source and
>reached US intelligence agents third-hand.
>
>In Israel, meanwhile, a parliamentary committee investigating exaggerated
>prewar claims over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction concluded that western
>agencies had dealt in speculation not facts.
>
>The committee said claims that Saddam was expanding his armoury were based
>on evaluations shared among intelligence agencies in Israel, the US,
>Britain and elsewhere, that reinforced "dubious interpretations" of the few
>facts available.
>
>But the report released yesterday by the foreign affairs and defence
>committee said that while there was a "serious intelligence failure" there
>was no evidence of deliberate deception to build a false case
>
>
Clarke challenges Rice to reveal secret emails
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1180088,00.html
>Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
>Monday March 29, 2004
>The Guardian
>
>Richard Clarke, the former terrorism adviser whose revelations threaten to
>torpedo George Bush's re-election strategy, launched a counterattack
>yesterday at a White House that he said was determined to destroy him.
>
>In a riveting television performance, Mr Clarke called on his principal
>critic and former employer, the national security adviser, Condoleezza
>Rice, to release the entire record of their emails in the months up to the
>September 11 terror attacks to prove his contention that the White House
>did not then take the threat of al-Qaida seriously.
>
>He also agreed to Republican demands to declassify testimony he gave to the
>Senate two years ago - to "prove" there were no inconsistencies. "Let's
>take all of my emails and all the memos I sent to the national security
>adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify
>all of them," Mr Clarke told NBC television.
>
>Mr Clarke's bravura presentation surprised the Bush administration. The
>decision to stand his ground could also be destructive to Ms Rice. She has
>been under intense scrutiny for a week - largely for being the focus of Mr
>Clarke's charges that the Bush government did not see al-Qaida as a
>priority before September 11, but also because she refused to testify
>before the commission.
>
>Yesterday, the commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, called for Ms Rice to
>testify in public. "We recognise there are arguments having to do with
>separation of powers. We think in a tragedy of this magnitude that those
>kind of legal arguments are probably overridden," he said. But he said he
>would not force the issue with a court order.
>
>Even leading Republican figures are criticising Ms Rice's refusal to
>appear, saying it looked as if she had something to hide. "I think she'd be
>wise to testify," said Richard Perle, a former Pentagon adviser.
>
>Further damage was inflicted yesterday in a Los Angeles Times report
>discrediting a prewar claim by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein
>had trucks capable of dispersing dangerous substances such as anthrax. The
>report claimed the information came from a single discredited source and
>reached US intelligence agents third-hand.
>
>In Israel, meanwhile, a parliamentary committee investigating exaggerated
>prewar claims over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction concluded that western
>agencies had dealt in speculation not facts.
>
>The committee said claims that Saddam was expanding his armoury were based
>on evaluations shared among intelligence agencies in Israel, the US,
>Britain and elsewhere, that reinforced "dubious interpretations" of the few
>facts available.
>
>But the report released yesterday by the foreign affairs and defence
>committee said that while there was a "serious intelligence failure" there
>was no evidence of deliberate deception to build a false case
>
>