Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GOP: Clarke May Have Lied Under Oath  
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/clarke.flap/index.html

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



Former White House aide Richard Clarke criticized Bush anti-terrorism policy this week before a bipartisan commision on 9/11 attacks.



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."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few points on this, as I see it.

-A political party, wanting to declassify sensitive information for apparent political advantage would be a terrible thing. To me, it shows just how scared the GOP is that this will damange Bush's credibility.

-IF it is found he he did lie-and I don't think that will be found, becuase the man would have to have realized that he'd be caught in such a lie with this new book out-then he should be charged with perjury, and lying under oath.

-Any former White House staffer MUST get the contents of any book approved ahead of it's publication, by the White House. Clarke did this. If the White House had no trouble with the book when it was reviewed, why is it now such a big deal to them now? Clarke could not have had the book published without the consent of the White House.

-I watched Clark this moring on "Meet The Press." Either Clarke is an incredibly great liar, and is absolutely cool when lying, or he's definitely on the up and up. He answered all questions calmly, giving criticism of not only George Bush, but of himself and Bill Clinton. Watching him very carefully, I get the impression he's not blowing smoke.

-On the related subject. If Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfwitz and George Tenant can appear before the 9/11 Commission, why can't Condi Rice? It gives the appearance that she doesn't want to tell what she knows, or that she's possibly hiding something. Sheshould appear and tell the commission her side of the story, instead of stonewalling.


23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1464 times:

I predict that it will ultimately be members of the G.O.P. who prevent Clarke's testimony from being declassified. That way, they are able to smear Clarke by indicating that his stories have been inconsistent while not having to open the testimony to the public.

This smells like a classic smear tactic that we have witnessed from the Neocons in the Republican Party use over the past four years.

As for Clarke's testimony, I read it in full and I think it's going to be pretty hard to discredit him. Polls indicate that more than ninety percent of the public have heard his name and have heard what he has claimed.

This is going to fester and build momentum. I suspect that we'll see Condi step down before the election.





User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

I watched Clarke on Meet the Press this morning as well. I had a much higher opinion of him and what he is saying, afterwards. One thing that did catch my ear.......he made a point of how Bill Clinton ordered the CIA to assassinate OBL, and you didn't hear the press talking about terrorism then at all. Monica Monica Monica. And then 9/11 sure as hell changed things.

"Finally, I do not intend to tell you how I knew/know about. Forget it."

And what is interesting is that the White House held up publication for a while and let it out just before this 9/11 commission.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

There´s a pretty interesting interview with Richard Clarke at Salon.com that addresses the reaction to his book and to his testimony:

Salon.com News | Richard Clarke terrorizes the White House

(You can enter by getting a "day pass" if you´ve got no standing account.)


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

Well, lets see. In the minds of the lefties here, perjury is ok as long as it is a Democrat (i.e. Bill Clinton) or if it is someone who is attacking President Bush. If Clarke, while under oath, told a Congressional committee in 2002 one thing and also while under oath told the 9-11 Commission the exact opposite, then he is in serious trouble. He was either lying in 2002 or was lying in 2004. Since he was under oath both times, he should be prosecuted.

Oh, and in case anyone missed Clarke on "Meet the DePressed" today, read the transcript.

MR. RUSSERT: And we're back. Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
MR. CLARKE: No, I did not.
MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore.
MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.

In a cheap attempt by one of the Bush bashing lefties on the 9-11 Commission to make Clarke appear "non partisan" he was asked how he voted in 2000. His reply was "I asked for a Republican ballot in 2000".
______________________________________________________________

he made a point of how Bill Clinton ordered the CIA to assassinate OBL

And yet the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, George Tenet, (who from 1997 until 2001 had only 2 meetings with Bill Clinton) said that the CIA was never given anything resembling orders to kill bin Laden. If Clinton was so gung-ho to capture OBL, why did he refuse to take him when Sudan offered to extradite him on three or four occasions?

[Edited 2004-03-28 20:51:30]


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Oh, some more about Clarke.

One of his closet colleagues is Rand Beers. Beers and Clarke both resigned from the White House within a month of one another. They've also taught classes at Harvard together. What is Beers up to right now? He is John F'ing Kerry's national security advisor.

Gotta love how in 2002 during a White House Press gathering, he said the exact opposite of what he is spouting now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Also, his letter of resignation doesn't seem to be negative in any way toward President Bush.




"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

B757300: In the minds of the lefties here, perjury is ok as long as it is a Democrat (i.e. Bill Clinton) or if it is someone who is attacking President Bush.

I´m not aware of that.


What I´m aware of, however, is a different weighing of such an occasion depending on it being about something completely irrelevant politically (getting a blowjob from a consenting adult) or being about matters of war and peace. Legally, there may not be a big difference; Politically and morally, it´s worlds apart.


B757300: Oh, and in case anyone missed Clarke on "Meet the DePressed" today, read the transcript.

MR. RUSSERT: And we're back. Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?
MR. CLARKE: No, I did not.
MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore.
MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.

In a cheap attempt by one of the Bush bashing lefties on the 9-11 Commission to make Clarke appear "non partisan" he was asked how he voted in 2000. His reply was "I asked for a Republican ballot in 2000".


Clarke said in the interview linked to above that he voted in the republican primary. And that he voted against Bush there as well:

Salon: Will you tell me whom you voted for in the Republican presidential primary in Virginia in 2000?

Clarke: Yeah, I voted for John McCain.

Voting against Bush in the general election again hardly seems inconsistent, don´t you think?


B757300: If Clinton was so gung-ho to capture OBL, why did he refuse to take him when Sudan offered to extradite him on three or four occasions?

What would the USA have done with him, in the absence of sufficient trial-proof evidence against him? An acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence would have been a tremendous psychological victory for Bin Laden.


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Any former White House staffer MUST get the contents of any book approved ahead of it's publication, by the White House.

That process is meant to insure that there isn't any classfied material in the book, not to be a fact checking panel.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1403 times:

B757300: Also, his letter of resignation doesn't seem to be negative in any way toward President Bush.

Okay, for newbies: Are you aware of how recommendation letters work? The ones which you may think are praising you but will reliably keep you from ever getting another job?

I hadn´t guessed Clarke´s letter would have been that bad.


"Privilege"? Of course; Serving the office and the country.

"Remembering leadership"? Yes, but explicitly limited to the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 attack. The standard phrase would mention the fight against terrorism (he doesn´t - there was nothing to compliment, apparently) and would extend over the entire time of his work for the president.

He not even mentions the collaboration on the fight against terror at all, which was his original position and the point he was criticizing in his book. Normally, he would not have limited his applause to his later (and much less important) post of "cyberspace security advisor".

"Fond memories"? Give me a break!
He´s basically saying the tone of the meetings was pleasant. No mention of anything being actually achieved there.

The last sentence is an admonishion exactly in line with his criticism, as if he was to add "... which you never seemed to take seriously!".


This is a very fine, but clearly noticeable damnation of a complacent and ill-prioritized administration; Basically a diplomatic kick in the behind.

Thank you for contributing the document. Really interesting, indeed.  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1362 times:

Well, lets see. In the minds of the lefties here, perjury is ok as long as it is a Democrat

What the hell did I say in my thread-starter, B757300? If he's perjured himself, then charge his ass, didn't I? But you have no damn clue IF he's perjured himself, do you? You will automatically believe he has, won't you? You'll back the president automatically, won't you? So much for that nonsense.

He's said he'll welcome the declassification of what he said, didn't he? Doesn't sound like a guy who perjured himself, does it?

Again, you show yourself incapable of any kind of dispassion, or any kind of unbiased critique of anything involving Bush.

Then tonight, on 60 Minutes, Condi Rice slipped, and I'm surprised Bradly didn't jump on it. After she said over and over there was no more that she thinks could have been done prior to 9/11, she later said they weren't aggressive enough in dealing with Al Qaeda. Which is it? If they weren't aggressive enough, then they didn't do all they could.

This one COULD hurt the president, and badly. It's bringing up a credibility gap to a president that has, as the centerpiece of his entire re-election strategy-the war on terror, and how well he's done on it. Seems to me, with the WH on the defensive, they're not convincing everyone of that, are they?


User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

Funny...I watched him this morning too, and got a different take on it than you Alpha. I thought it interesting how Clarke tried to qualify the Clinton folks reaction to Terrorism by saying that "only" 35 Americans died on the Clinton watch when Russert brought up the half a dozen times we were attacked and basically didn't respond.

Thought it funny too when Russert called him out for holding the Bush admin to a different level than that of the Clinton admin, was amusing to watch Clarke squirm.

Bottom line is this guy, like Paul O'Neil before him is trying to sell a book...when asked if he had released his book to co-ordinate with the 9-11 commission, all he could muster was that it was out of his hands, totally up to the publisher...I cry bullshit.

This isn't going to hurt the Pres as much as many think.

Of course he wants a more civilized discussion, he doesn't want to talk about why he is going to be discredited.

"After she said over and over there was no more that she thinks could have been done prior to 9/11, she later said they weren't aggressive enough in dealing with Al Qaeda."

As has been stated before, they were following the previous admins lead. And to my knowledge, no one had any hard evidence that multiple aircraft would be hijacked and crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and a third location on 9-11.







Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1338 times:

Bottom line is this guy, like Paul O'Neil before him is trying to sell a book...when asked if he had released his book to co-ordinate with the 9-11 commission, all he could muster was that it was out of his hands, totally up to the publisher...I cry bullshit.

The publisher just happens to be owned by Viacom, the owner of CBS. His 60 Minutes "interview" was nothing more than an infomercial for his book.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

Funny...I watched him this morning too, and got a different take on it than you Alpha.

Gee, why am I not shocked by that. Amazing how you can take a guy who is as dead serious as he was, and think he's just a big liar. I'm just shocked you think that.

Bottom line is this guy, like Paul O'Neil before him is trying to sell a book

Yes, James, and don't YOU think it's kind of odd that the White House is making a stink over a book-THAT THEY APPROVED?? Now, why is that, do you suppose?

Go back and kiss up to a picture of Bush some more. That's what you seem to do best.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1328 times:

Yes, James, and don't YOU think it's kind of odd that the White House is making a stink over a book-THAT THEY APPROVED?? Now, why is that, do you suppose?

Alpha, as I understand it, the White House does not have editorial rights. They can bar certain information which is classified, but that is all. The writer can write that the president is into bestiality or any other lies he wants, but as long as it is not classified information, the White House cannot stop him from saying that in the book.

Charles


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5620 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1326 times:

What's eerie about all this two high-level Admin have broke ranks and shed light on a very problematic issue. The last time anything remotely close to this happening...the president resigned in disgrace. And what's worse is the news media along with the GOP are more hyped about an alleged Clarke contradiction vs his and O'Neil's revelations. A truly independent media would be representing the public and demanding to know from the president...'Is this true?' and not not let up until he answers!

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1314 times:

"Gee, why am I not shocked by that. Amazing how you can take a guy who is as dead serious as he was, and think he's just a big liar. I'm just shocked you think that."

Amazing that you can sit there and take every word he says as gospel...I'm just shocked you think that.

"Yes, James, and don't YOU think it's kind of odd that the White House is making a stink over a book-THAT THEY APPROVED?? Now, why is that, do you suppose?"

Refer to cfalks post.

"Go back and kiss up to a picture of Bush some more. That's what you seem to do best."

You always resort to that crap, that and calling people "son". Your shtick gets old.

"media along with the GOP are more hyped about an alleged Clarke contradiction vs his and O'Neil's revelations. A truly independent media would be representing the public and demanding to know from the president...'Is this true?' and not not let up until he answers!"

If they lied should it not matter, and should they not let up until an answer is given, or until they get the one they want?







Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1314 times:

And what's worse is the news media along with the GOP are more hyped about an alleged Clarke contradiction vs his and O'Neil's revelations.

When you are in court, and they bring on a witness (particularly expert witnesses), they first establish his credentials and experience. I.E. you first establish WHY you should believe him.

That's logical. You have to establish the credibility of the accuser before you can accurately assess his testimony. The sword cuts both ways. If Clarke can defend his reputation as a qualified, non-partisan witness, then people can believe him. If he turns out to be partisan, and angry at having been passed over for promotion, and especially if he actually did lie under oath, it would be unreasonable to believe his story.

If you choose to believe Clarke without knowing the backroom politics of the past 2 presidencies, you are either prejudiced or naive. Conversely, If you believe Clarke is lying, you are also either prejudiced or naive. We just don't know. Personally, I think he has distorted the truth, but cannot be sure. What Clarke has done is to sow the seeds of doubt.

Charles


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5620 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1298 times:

According to CNN...Clarke is saying 'bring on his previous testimony'..this can turn into a 'be careful what you wish for...you just might get it'!


BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1287 times:

Alpha, as I understand it, the White House does not have editorial rights.

In a sense, Charles, they do. If the White House DOES NOT approve the book, it CANNOT be published. Period. That is required of anyone who recently workedi nthe WH when they pen a book. And for obvious reasons, to make sure no classified info was used.

So if that's the case, then why are they so upset NOW?

I think he has distorted the truth..

Boy, there's one to stop the presses with. Again, just shocked that you would come to that conclusion, Charles..Not.

He has sown the seeds of doubt, you're right-in the credibility of this White House. And, do you think he's be chomping at the bit to get ALL that testimony declassified if he were going to purjure himself, Charles? I hardly think so.

What is going to come out of this, if this testimony is declassified-for partisian political reasons, I might add-and Clarke is shown to be consistent, it will damage not only President Bush's efforts to assassinate this man's character, but will portray the GOP in a very negative light, that can only hurt them.


User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1278 times:

"...to make sure no classified info was used."

I would bet that that is the extent of their editorial license, surely they can not simply black-out what they deem untrue. Which is why they responded so quickly to his allegations, they knew what he was going to say before you or I did, and knew that he could possibly have a credibility issue.


"What is going to come out of this, if this testimony is declassified-for partisan political reasons, I might add-and Clarke is shown to be consistent, it will damage not only President Bush's efforts to assassinate this man's character, but will portray the GOP in a very negative light, that can only hurt them."

On the other hand, if the testimony is declassified to refute what he has said under oath, and he is shown to be inconsistent...will the left and left leaning finally shut their mouth?

J



Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1273 times:

I would bet that that is the extent of their editorial license, surely they can not simply black-out what they deem untrue.

James, you don't get it, do you? The WH CAN stop publication of the book if they object to it on any grounds, and wouldn't you think somene perjuring themselves to smear a president would be grounds? Think about it.

On the other hand, if the testimony is declassified to refute what he has said under oath, and he is shown to be inconsistent...will the left and left leaning finally shut their mouth?

Conversely, what happens if it can't be refuted? Will the right and right-leaning shut thier yaps? I doubt it, James. I highly doubt it. Even if it's found his testimony is consistent, the Bush Administration will continue this character assassination. And make no mistake, it's being down at the behest and with the approval of the President.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

I believe that the GOP and Bill Frist in particular is playing with fire. Lying under oath is a felony and they had better have the rough equivalent of an indictment before hinting such accusations. If Frist did not have his legal immunities as a Senator, I wonder if he could be sued for libel or slander. I do not know if he could. I am sure that Frist would not say under oath that he believes Clarke is actually lying.

The suggestion that Clarke is doing all of this simply to sell a book is asinine. Before writing it he was well aware that Bush would unleash all of his resources to attack him personally and to make it real hard for him to work in Washington again.

Even as a right-of-center kind of guy, I am very annoyed at all the attacks on this man's character and attempts to paint him as a closet left-winger and alternatively as a pissed off white guy who had his job taken by a black woman. The Rove attack machine is tripping all over itself in trying to destoy this man.

For instance, the White House cited a press briefing that Clarke gave while employed as Bush Administration official in which he highlighted the Administration's accomplishments as evidence of Clarke being two-faced. I was incredulous while listening to McClelland trying to make a point. As an Adminstration official, it was Clarke's job to paint a positive picture of the Administration's efforts and it was not his job to state his personal opinions.

While listening to Clarke, people seem to forget that he is merely stating his opinions for the most part. Many people, including his White House attackers, are treating his remarks as if he were making statements of fact with each word.

The reason that his words carry such weight is that Clarke, by virtue of his remarkable record of service to this country, has considerable amount of credibility. He served President Reagan and President Bush (the 1st) with no problems and then went onto serve under President Clinton. The White House would then have us believe that all of a sudden he developed an attitude problem.

Sure I do not know all of the politics that may have occured, but based on the circumstantial evidence available, I believe Clarke and do not believe the White House at all on this matter.

The Rove enforcement appartus is ruthless when it comes to silencing and punishing those that do not toe their line. If it were just one Republican (and distinguished Democrats that have served this country) that was speaking out against this Administration, then it would be different. There are many besides Clarke:

Paul O'Neill (Why would a very, very rich guy care about selling a book and ruining a bunch of old friendships and valuable political connections?)

Amb. Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame (True patriotic Americans)

Richard Foster (accountant who would not cook the books on Medicare to suit the White House)

There are more.





User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1248 times:

"...make it real hard for him to work in Washington again."

He has publically stated over and over he has no desire to go back into public service ever again.





Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1237 times:

JamesAg96,

Regardless of Clarke's future career intentions, part of the White House (Karl Rove-designed) strategy is counter-attack at multiple levels including freezing people out of the Republican establishment in Washington.

That is a bigger universe than just public sevice jobs: it includes much more financially lucrative consulting, lobbying, and advisory positions. The Democrats have their own and comparably money-laden establishment in place as well.

During his interview with Russert yesterday, Clarke stated that one of his friends in the White House overheard that they were going to make sure "he [Clarke] would not earn another dime in Washington again." While this second hand paraphrased quotation is obviously not definitive proof of anything, I tend to believe it given that Clarke's other quotes have been verified as true and the White House record of punishing those who speak out against them.

I point out that a yet to be identified person in the White House committed an act approaching treason (or perhaps it was legally treason) when they blew the cover on Valerie Plame who was an active CIA operative. That was no accident. Plame's career is over and the perpetrator remains free.

[Edited 2004-03-30 00:45:25]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hmm, I May Have Made Up A Joke... posted Sun Sep 24 2006 12:36:51 by Thom@s
Howdy, I May Have Missed Some Of You! posted Sat Apr 22 2006 01:45:48 by Gregtx
This Critter May Have Weakened Levy's! posted Wed Sep 7 2005 01:08:36 by Zippyjet
Beware - Virgins May Have STDs... posted Sat Mar 19 2005 02:46:31 by DeltaFFinDFW
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi May Have Have Been Arrested posted Sun Jan 23 2005 07:17:06 by Rsmith6621a
Kerry May Have Just Lost Nevada Swing Vote. posted Tue Oct 26 2004 17:59:42 by SlamClick
NIck Bergs Murderers May Have Been Caught posted Fri May 21 2004 15:14:57 by L-188
U.S. May Have To Grovel To The UN For Iraq Help posted Sat Jul 19 2003 21:57:38 by Alpha 1
I May Have Caught S.A.R.S Today posted Thu Apr 24 2003 16:57:21 by UTA_flyinghigh
I May Have The Ultimate Challenge For Simpsons Fan posted Fri Mar 7 2003 13:05:47 by Thom@s