Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clarke and His Prior Testimony

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Clarke and His Prior Testimony

    My apologies if this has already been discussed. I was a faithful participant in the no political threads on Friday concept.

    This is going to get interesting -- no matter what side of the fence you are on.

    GOP: Declassify Clarke's 2002 testimony
    Saturday, March 27, 2004 Posted: 7:29 AM EST (1229 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate's top Republican demanded Friday that testimony former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave before a congressional panel investigating the September 11 attacks in 2002 be declassified to determine whether he lied Wednesday to an independent commission probing the tragedy.

    In a blistering floor speech, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee charged that Clarke "has told two entirely different stories under oath," and he castigated Clarke for cashing in on the 9/11 tragedy by writing a book.

    "I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing on the tragedy that befell this nation on September 11th, 2001," Frist said, calling on Clarke to "renounce any plan to personally profit from this book."

    At issue is testimony Clarke gave behind closed doors in July 2002 in a hearing before the House and Senate intelligence committees jointly investigating the attacks.

    Frist said that during that testimony, Clarke was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration," though the majority leader provided no details.

    On Wednesday, Clarke testified publicly before an independent, bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 tragedy known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and charged that the Bush administration did not focus enough on the fight against terrorism before the attacks. He also wrote a book, "Against All Enemies," that leveled the same charges, which have been vigorously disputed by a host of administration officials.

    Frist's comments were the latest attempts by Republicans to challenge Clarke's credibility. But the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the joint investigation, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, expressed doubt Friday that Clarke's earlier testimony would do anything to establish that he lied under oath.

    "To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week," Graham said in a statement.

    After Frist made his demand, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, issued a statement saying he would also support declassification of Clarke's testimony. He said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Florida, plans to make that request.

    "It is my view that Richard Clarke's testimony before the joint inquiry will shed light on the issues without compromising national security," Hastert said, adding that the independent 9/11 commission has already received Clarke's earlier testimony.

    Graham, too, said he would support declassification. But he said if Clarke's testimony is released, the Bush administration should declassify it in full, rather than "selectively" editing it to only disclose material favorable to the White House.

    He also said documents mentioned in Clarke's testimony should be declassified, and he pushed again for the White House to release 27 pages of the joint inquiry's final report that were held back on grounds of national security.

    Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, who has not commented in detail on Clarke's charges, waded gingerly into the fray Friday in an interview with CBS MarketWatch.

    "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," Kerry said. "They have a perfect right to do that."

    Kerry said that he has read only "a couple of chapters" of Clarke's book and has not seen his testimony before the 9/11 panel.

    "I think what he said raises very serious questions," Kerry said.

    A senior Kerry adviser said the senator "thinks instead of answering the tough questions, the administration is playing scare tactics. ... Instead of answering tough questions, they're trying to tear down the messenger."

    "They are clearly scared of this and want to try and quash this as quickly as possible," the adviser said. "The American people want answers, and saying Richard Clarke is a liar is not good enough."

    In another development, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- who has taken the brunt of Clarke's criticism -- will appear Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes," the program where Clarke first discussed his allegations last week.

    The White House offered to have Rice appear on "60 Minutes" after the program asked the White House for someone to comment on the week's developments, CBS said in a statement. The interview will be taped Sunday.

    Rice has come under fire from members of the independent 9/11 commission for refusing to testify publicly before the panel. The White House maintains that it is inappropriate for her to testify because the doctrine of executive privilege precludes presidential staff members, such as Rice, from giving public testimony to panels formed by Congress.

    Secretary of State Colin Powell, himself a former national security adviser, defended that position Friday.

    "The president's personal staff has a unique role," Powell told "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS. "They're his intimate personal advisers, and the tradition and precedent has been ... that people in that position do not testify before the Congress."

    "I know she would like to do it. She wants to tell the story, but she has to consider the precedent that would be created by this."

    Rice provided more than four hours of private testimony to the 9/11 commission in February. Thursday, the White House made a formal request that the panel hold another private meeting with Rice so she can rebut Clarke's charges.

    "There were clearly some statements and assertions that were made that were wrong," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday. "It's important to make sure ... that the commission has all the information they need to do their job."
    This is from CNN.com
    "You can't handle my opinions." Moedrabowsky

    Jeffro is a hell of a good man.

    "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost

  • #2
    Well, I think John Kerry makes a good point - if Clarke did say something false or lied, then that is an act of perjury, and Bush and his cronies have all the power in the world to throw the book at Clarke.

    But if they dont, then what Clarke said has to be the truth and believed by everyone.

    There was no elaboration anywhere of what Clarke said under oath in 2002, just vague comments about him "saying good things about Bush".

    So unless they come up with something concrete than can be proved, and charge Clarke with perjury, then I dont see how the Republicans can legitimately make the case that Clarke was lying.

    Clarke could probably sue somebody for slander if they keep saying he is lying under oath, but offer no proof of it.
    “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

    Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

    Comment


    • #3
      Glad you posted that phantom.

      Check this out. Hilarious. From the msnbc story.

      ***
      “Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” Frist said in a speech from the Senate floor, alleging that Clarke said in 2002 that the Bush administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al-Qaida before the attacks.

      Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. But he said, “Until you have him under oath both times, you don’t know.”
      ***

      Ah, politics. I don't know for sure, but hey, I will accuse him of perjury anyway.

      What a chump.
      Dude. Can. Fly.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dvyyyyyy@Mar 27 2004, 11:12 AM
        Glad you posted that phantom.

        Check this out. Hilarious. From the msnbc story.

        ***
        “Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” Frist said in a speech from the Senate floor, alleging that Clarke said in 2002 that the Bush administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al-Qaida before the attacks.

        Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. But he said, “Until you have him under oath both times, you don’t know.”
        ***

        Ah, politics. I don't know for sure, but hey, I will accuse him of perjury anyway.

        What a chump.
        Dvyyyyy,

        Yeah, that was funny.

        Most of Bush's cronies remind me of a dog whose bark is louder than its bite.
        “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

        Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

        Comment


        • #5
          Bill Frist makes me long for Bob Dole.

          Seriously.
          His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
          Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

          Comment


          • #6
            And the man's a doctor, for crying out loud. Don't they take an oath of ethics? :o
            Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

            "The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

            Comment


            • #7
              Wasn't Frist the one that supposedly didn't want the 9/11 commission to have an extension?
              Dude. Can. Fly.

              Comment


              • #8
                I say supposedly because I assume he was told to say that by the WH.
                Dude. Can. Fly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dvyyyyyy@Mar 27 2004, 11:30 AM
                  Wasn't Frist the one that supposedly didn't want the 9/11 commission to have an extension?
                  Hasert
                  Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X