Speaking of testimony before Congress............ By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent WASHINGTON - Top Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush handling of the war on terror. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor. The Tennessee Republican said he hopes Clarke's testimony in July 2002 before the House and Senate intelligence committees can be declassified. Then, he said, it can be compared with the account the former aide provided in his nationally televised appearance Wednesday before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said he supports the move. "We need to lean forward in making as much information available to the public as possible, without compromising the national security interests of the nation," he said in a statement. Hastert said the initial request had been made by Rep. Porter Goss, the Florida Republican who heads the House intelligence committee. The developments marked the latest turn in a Republican counterattack against Clarke, who has leveled his criticism against Bush in a new book as well as in interviews and his sworn testimony before the commission. In his testimony, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks. Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq had undermined the war on terror. In a sharply worded speech, Frist said that Clarke himself was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center. Additionally, he accused Clarke of "an appalling act of profiteering" by publishing a book that relied on access to insider information relating to the worst terrorist attacks in the nation's history. He also accused him of making a "theatrical apology" to the families of the terrorist victims at the outset of his appearance on Wednesday, saying it was not "his right, his privilege or his responsibility" to do so. "Mr. Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct, but that is all," he said. Frist, without elaborating, said Clarke's testimony in 2002 was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration." Frist also noted that Clarke, appearing as an anonymous official, had praised the administration's actions in an appearance before White House reporters in 2002. Clarke on Wednesday dismissed that appearance as the fulfillment of the type of request that presidential appointees frequently receive. But, Frist said, "Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied to Congress."
art, here is your quote: "Clarke's prior statements were not directly different. His explanation was more than adequate, lots of people will find a way to keep from lying and support their employer." by saying this now art, you have decreased the credibility of all your prior statements. clarke had an agenda in 2002, and he has an agenda today, the only difference, by your account, is his employer. the truth, that you so desperately yearn for, may be the victim in both cases since we cannot count on clarke's testimony either way.
Ross: Not at all. Its one thing to say something like: I didn't do that, and then say I did. That is directly contradictory. Clarke didn't do that. What he said was at best mildly inconsistent, not a direct opposite, that's what I said. On the other hand, Dr. Rice's statements are directly contradictory, and perhaps we should declassify her statements, and charge her with perjury. Bottom line (and I deal in this area) when people are put under oath for a long time, there will ALWAYS be inconsistencies, no matter what the issue. The human mind isn't a computer, and we don't always exactly get things perfectly. We can do that for a short time period, but extend the examination time, and I guarantee you inconsistencies. I've made a very good living over the years, at least in part because of that. Art
Art, time and time again, what you're saying is, anybody who supports Bush is a Goddamned liar, and anybody who doesn't, preaches the Gospel truth.
Clinton's party...oooopps...the Democrat's....(I forgot he was no longer involved...time to move on....heh)......wouldn't say sh*t if there mouth's were full of it, so therefore as Clinton did nothing as history has proven......let's look at logic for a minute. Clarke is so full of it it's running out of his ears and anyone else who genuinely thinks that the Democrats have the correct answers is sorrily mistaken when any of their arguments are put into a different context.......one based on reality....not their "petrie dish". How can anyone buy into the idea that we should try to prevent future 9/11's by trying to capture terrorists without killing them in hostile nations like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Taliban's Afghanistan or "ANY OTHER COUNTRY" that harbors and aids them ? Then let's say that against all odds, we manage to slap the cuffs on a terrorist and somehow get him back to the US. We'll never leave them in another country again....the bloody Italians freed the killers of Leon Klinghofer who hijacked the Achille Lauro after US jets forced down the passenger jet carrying him to safety. He died in.......wait for it......Baghdad......doouuhhh. Then, even though they're probably not going to be US citizens, we're supposed give them a high powered attorney and try to put them in jail even though we realistically can't reveal a lot of our intelligence sources and most of the relevant witnesses live in other countries? Keep in mind that in 1996, even after Al-Qaeda had been involved in the first WTC bombings and the Black Hawk Down incident, Bill Clinton still didn't believe we had a basis on which to hold Osama Bin Laden. In an age where a nuclear terrorist attack is not out of the question, how can we risk engaging in that sort of unworkable strategy? The last thing I want to hear after a suitcase nuke goes off in LA or DC is "Yeah, we knew where the terrorists were, but we didn't think we could make a case against them in court so we didn't take any action.......and besides......(Democratic voter speaking reaches to satisfy crotch itch but realizes he has no balls).........we didn't want to make them mad." You guys vote in a few months.......think about it........
To those of you who haven't read Clarke's book (and I suspect that's about 99% of you) you'll see that in those areas which are NOT contested, that Clinton did quite a bit about Lin Laden, and an awful lot of what you're saying has no factual basis. Yeh, don't let that bother you, keep spouting the company line, even if it can be disproved, and shown to be false. Clinton did quite a bit about Bin Laden, even authorizing his death, unfortunately there were problems in getting that done. An example, quoted by Clarke, and undisputed by anyone, was an attempt in 98 to kill Bin Laden with cruise missles. Navy was asked to use submarines, so that the Pakistanis wouldn't see the destroyers and perhaps warn bin Laden. Navy used the destroyers, off the coast of Pakistan, a bunch of them, Bin Laden wasn't there when the cruise missles got there. Clarke had quite a bit to say about the infighting in our government, the stupidity of the FBI, CIA, et al in his book. None of that is disputed, and it makes for very good reading. Given what I've seen, years ago, and what I've read about now, I'm amazed that we are the only superpower. We are voting in a few month. Let's use facts to get from a to b, not b/s. Art
