More on Clarke
-
Republicans Want to Declassify Clarke's 2002 Testimony[^] U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Friday top congressional Republicans were seeking to declassify testimony that former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in July 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ... Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said there appear to be contradictions between what Clarke told a pair of congressional panels two years ago and what he said this week before a bipartisan commission investigating those attacks. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor. He quoted Clarke as telling Congress behind closed doors, "the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office." ... Said Frist, "It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media ... but if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far, far more serious matter." "The (House of Representatives) intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke's testimony declassified, to actually permit an examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts. Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found he lied," Frist said. It seems to me that an "examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts" could be done by folks with security clearance and the real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. :suss: :sigh: Just think... only 8 more months until the election. X| "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Republicans Want to Declassify Clarke's 2002 Testimony[^] U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Friday top congressional Republicans were seeking to declassify testimony that former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in July 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ... Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said there appear to be contradictions between what Clarke told a pair of congressional panels two years ago and what he said this week before a bipartisan commission investigating those attacks. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor. He quoted Clarke as telling Congress behind closed doors, "the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office." ... Said Frist, "It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media ... but if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far, far more serious matter." "The (House of Representatives) intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke's testimony declassified, to actually permit an examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts. Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found he lied," Frist said. It seems to me that an "examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts" could be done by folks with security clearance and the real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. :suss: :sigh: Just think... only 8 more months until the election. X| "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
Mike Mullikin wrote: "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor. yet:
Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarke's testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.
sounds like someone else is telling two different stories.
For a quarter-century there has been a consensus in the Senate that the [intelligence] committee's nonpartisan tradition must be carefully safeguarded. Nothing else is acceptable. Why? Because this committee deals with information that is unique, that is privileged information, because of the dangerous and sensitive nature of the subject matter for which the Intelligence Committee ... has unique oversight. -Bill Frist, December 10, 2003
and, the latest GOP spin is that Clarke is a racist and a sexist. still waiting for refutations of the actual substance of the book (which is now in its 5th printing, b.t.w.). haven't seen much besides attempts at character asassination. -c Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor. yet:
Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarke's testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.
sounds like someone else is telling two different stories.
For a quarter-century there has been a consensus in the Senate that the [intelligence] committee's nonpartisan tradition must be carefully safeguarded. Nothing else is acceptable. Why? Because this committee deals with information that is unique, that is privileged information, because of the dangerous and sensitive nature of the subject matter for which the Intelligence Committee ... has unique oversight. -Bill Frist, December 10, 2003
and, the latest GOP spin is that Clarke is a racist and a sexist. still waiting for refutations of the actual substance of the book (which is now in its 5th printing, b.t.w.). haven't seen much besides attempts at character asassination. -c Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances. That's political-ese for: "Someone told me there are discrepancies." :-D "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Chris Losinger wrote: He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances. That's political-ese for: "Someone told me there are discrepancies." :-D "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
you're probably right about that. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Republicans Want to Declassify Clarke's 2002 Testimony[^] U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Friday top congressional Republicans were seeking to declassify testimony that former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in July 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ... Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said there appear to be contradictions between what Clarke told a pair of congressional panels two years ago and what he said this week before a bipartisan commission investigating those attacks. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor. He quoted Clarke as telling Congress behind closed doors, "the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office." ... Said Frist, "It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media ... but if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far, far more serious matter." "The (House of Representatives) intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke's testimony declassified, to actually permit an examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts. Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found he lied," Frist said. It seems to me that an "examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts" could be done by folks with security clearance and the real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. :suss: :sigh: Just think... only 8 more months until the election. X| "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
Mike Mullikin wrote: Just think... only 8 more months until the election Can't wait for it to be over and done with. :) Sheez and I'm not even living there. ;P Chris Meech We're more like a hobbiest in a Home Depot drooling at all the shiny power tools, rather than a craftsman that makes the chair to an exacting level of comfort by measuring the customer's butt. Marc Clifton VB is like a toolbox, in the hands of a craftsman, you can end up with some amazing stuff, but without the skills to use it right you end up with Homer Simpson's attempt at building a barbeque or his attempt at a Spice rack. Michael P. Butler
-
Republicans Want to Declassify Clarke's 2002 Testimony[^] U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Friday top congressional Republicans were seeking to declassify testimony that former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in July 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ... Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said there appear to be contradictions between what Clarke told a pair of congressional panels two years ago and what he said this week before a bipartisan commission investigating those attacks. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor. He quoted Clarke as telling Congress behind closed doors, "the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office." ... Said Frist, "It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media ... but if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far, far more serious matter." "The (House of Representatives) intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke's testimony declassified, to actually permit an examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts. Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found he lied," Frist said. It seems to me that an "examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts" could be done by folks with security clearance and the real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. :suss: :sigh: Just think... only 8 more months until the election. X| "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
Mike Mullikin wrote: folks with security clearance Absolutely correct! If there are valid reasons for keeping the document classified, those reasons are not overridden by the need to expose false statements, and the record should remain classified. There are certainly enough people running around DC with high security clearances that we can rely on for an independent review. If there are no reasons for the classification, it should be declassified and made public. Will Build Nuclear Missile For Food - No Target Too Small
-
Republicans Want to Declassify Clarke's 2002 Testimony[^] U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Friday top congressional Republicans were seeking to declassify testimony that former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in July 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ... Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said there appear to be contradictions between what Clarke told a pair of congressional panels two years ago and what he said this week before a bipartisan commission investigating those attacks. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor. He quoted Clarke as telling Congress behind closed doors, "the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office." ... Said Frist, "It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media ... but if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far, far more serious matter." "The (House of Representatives) intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke's testimony declassified, to actually permit an examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts. Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found he lied," Frist said. It seems to me that an "examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts" could be done by folks with security clearance and the real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. :suss: :sigh: Just think... only 8 more months until the election. X| "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
I have to admit that I get all my current TV news from the "Daily Show". They showed a clip in which Clarke got a zinger off on Frist, and I had the pleasure of seeing a politician speechless.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
I have to admit that I get all my current TV news from the "Daily Show". They showed a clip in which Clarke got a zinger off on Frist, and I had the pleasure of seeing a politician speechless.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
JWood wrote: They showed a clip in which Clarke got a zinger off on Frist... I'm not sure what the penalties are for perjury in front of a federal committee but I hope the "zinger" was a good one. :~ "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Republicans Want to Declassify Clarke's 2002 Testimony[^] U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Friday top congressional Republicans were seeking to declassify testimony that former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in July 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ... Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said there appear to be contradictions between what Clarke told a pair of congressional panels two years ago and what he said this week before a bipartisan commission investigating those attacks. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said on the Senate floor. He quoted Clarke as telling Congress behind closed doors, "the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first 11 months in office." ... Said Frist, "It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media ... but if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far, far more serious matter." "The (House of Representatives) intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke's testimony declassified, to actually permit an examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts. Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found he lied," Frist said. It seems to me that an "examination of Mr. Clarke's two differing accounts" could be done by folks with security clearance and the real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. :suss: :sigh: Just think... only 8 more months until the election. X| "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
Mike Mullikin wrote: real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? As far as I can see there is nothing political for him to gain and he gets dragged through the mud by Rove's attack dogs to boot. Now if you said he did it to sell some books, you might have a point, but he could have written a book praising Bush and/or attacking Clinton, Bush Sr. or even Regan and sold books.
-
JWood wrote: They showed a clip in which Clarke got a zinger off on Frist... I'm not sure what the penalties are for perjury in front of a federal committee but I hope the "zinger" was a good one. :~ "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? As far as I can see there is nothing political for him to gain and he gets dragged through the mud by Rove's attack dogs to boot. Now if you said he did it to sell some books, you might have a point, but he could have written a book praising Bush and/or attacking Clinton, Bush Sr. or even Regan and sold books.
Good point - he could have written a nice P.J. O'Rourke type-book and got himself on the Best sellers list that way. He not alone either. O'Niell said the same thing, Palme/Wilson are saying the same thing for obvious reasons. Are these all disgruntled employees? And I must add: all moderate republicans.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
-
I have to admit that I get all my current TV news from the "Daily Show". They showed a clip in which Clarke got a zinger off on Frist, and I had the pleasure of seeing a politician speechless.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
Did you mean this which was actually Thompson and not Frisk: THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book? CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect. THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. CLARKE: I don't get that. CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics. THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE) Transcripts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html[^]
-
Did you mean this which was actually Thompson and not Frisk: THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book? CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect. THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. CLARKE: I don't get that. CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics. THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE) Transcripts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html[^]
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: perjury Time will tell who is perjuring.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
JWood wrote: Time will tell who is perjuring. The truly sad part is that you are probably wrong. More likely IMO: The right and left will huff and puff, the media will grumble, the next big political storm will race in and push this to the back burner and ultimately off the stove all together. Taxpayers will have no real truth or evidence of anything. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: real reason to declassify is to publicly discredit him for political gain but since I feel many of Clarke's recent actions have had a similar aim I suppose it's justified. Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? As far as I can see there is nothing political for him to gain and he gets dragged through the mud by Rove's attack dogs to boot. Now if you said he did it to sell some books, you might have a point, but he could have written a book praising Bush and/or attacking Clinton, Bush Sr. or even Regan and sold books.
Wjousts wrote: Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? As far as I can see there is nothing political for him to gain... Poor choice of words on my part. The republicans are trying to discredit him for their political gain. IMO Clarke has several potential motives other than the innocent whistle-blower he portrays: Disgruntled employee, sell more books, deflect criticism of his own poor performance, has turned democrat or pro-Kerry. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Good point - he could have written a nice P.J. O'Rourke type-book and got himself on the Best sellers list that way. He not alone either. O'Niell said the same thing, Palme/Wilson are saying the same thing for obvious reasons. Are these all disgruntled employees? And I must add: all moderate republicans.
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
JWood wrote: Are these all disgruntled employees? Using this logic you must also believe that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. :rolleyes: "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
JWood wrote: Are these all disgruntled employees? Using this logic you must also believe that Clinton is responsible for dozens of murders. :rolleyes: "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
JWood wrote: Time will tell who is perjuring. The truly sad part is that you are probably wrong. More likely IMO: The right and left will huff and puff, the media will grumble, the next big political storm will race in and push this to the back burner and ultimately off the stove all together. Taxpayers will have no real truth or evidence of anything. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
That reminds me MMMMMMMM Grumblecakes.
-
Are you talking about Scaife?
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right. - Schopenhauer
A LIST OF CLINTON-RELATED DEATHS[^] The serious anti-Clinton zealots like to paint Clinton as a mob boss type who has ordered dozens of "hits" to cover his ass over the years. Most Clintonites point out that Clinton as a governor and president had thousands of acquaintances and the number of deaths is normal. So the fact that Bush has had a few ex-employees cry "foul" after leaving his employ means nothing and does not validate any of them. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Wjousts wrote: Why do you think Clarke's actions are for political gain? As far as I can see there is nothing political for him to gain... Poor choice of words on my part. The republicans are trying to discredit him for their political gain. IMO Clarke has several potential motives other than the innocent whistle-blower he portrays: Disgruntled employee, sell more books, deflect criticism of his own poor performance, has turned democrat or pro-Kerry. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld