GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony

[cal04]

In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.

Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath — either in 2002 or this week — when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the war on terr


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=1&u=/ap/20040326/ap_on_go_co/clarke_congress

[arcane1]

1. oh ok, they get all snippy about being 'under oath'

meanwhile, Condi REFUSES to be under oath!!!

keep it up, repubes....

[Just Me]

25. Didn't the WH hold Clarke's book since October before issuing approval

of its release? I seem to remember Clarke stating that he book would have been release months ago but for the fact that the WH had withheld approval of its publication. It's the GOP that forced the book to come out at the time of the hearings, probably as a means to distract from the content of those hearings by having Clarke to attack as a scapegoat.

[arcane1]

31. he did indeed say that

it would've been out long ago had they not held on to it

[papau]

41. "effusive in his praise" by only noting good things Bush did is a crime?

From the AP:
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."

========================================================================

If it is a crime, every other Bush official to testify in last 3 years is quilty of the same crime!

[cdeca]

60. So...

by Frist "revealing" details of "classified" info, is he not proving that he himself (Frist) is a traitor? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Zhade]

52. Further evidence of a limited hang-out, in my humble opinion.

NT!

[aquart]

2. I feel this won't go as well as Frist would like.

Looking forward to it.

[Just Me]

21. I agree. I anticipate a total backlash.

Bullies always push the envelope until its too late and full-scale retaliation takes place. This will blow-up in his face, big time.

LIHOP is outta' da' bag and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, you greedy, heartless, lyin' bastards!

BWAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA *giggle*

[Redleg]

29. Bloody f@cking typical.

They won't release the energy task force records, they won't let Condi Rice testify in public, they won't let Dubya speak in public, but they will de-classify Clarke's stuff.

[Terran]

45. the very quintessence of hypocrisy

These people have no shame whatsoever.

One also has to wonder, given that the testimony is classified, whether it's such a good idea from a national security viewpoint to declassify it for obviously partisan purposes. I mean, don't they have to have a real reason to do that, something a bit more solid than a fishing expedition?

[emulatorloo]

36. Frist, be careful what you wish for. . .

So Clarke in 2002 is a big liar, loyal to the admin huh? This is not going to work out well for them. . .see Frist quotes below. . .GOP is in for trouble w this one. . .once they prove his "lies" in 2002 they are in for big trouble.

<snip>

Clarke on Wednesday told a commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration in its first eight months in office regarded terrorism as "not an urgent issue" -- a charge the White House has hotly denied.

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.

<snip>

On edit clarify

[dax]

64. How can they deny Bush went on vacation during extreme alert!?!

How can they deny they relegated counter-terorism briefings to the deputies committee and never even let CLarke brief the President? The "record" is out there already from their own hot lips-

I have a rule when I investigate guilt or a policy violation (I am a shop steward) If I know the person I am defending is guilty, I concentrate on mitigating factors, the more I investigate, the more evidence I find to prove Management's case. If my guy/woman is INNOCENT-I become COlumbo-every where I look there is only MORE EVIDENCE the person is innocent, more witnesses, documents, previous incidents that set up the problem etc. BushCo are blowing smoke out their ***-they are trying to create "spin that CLarke is not credible-they PUT HIM IN CHARGE after 9/11-he was their first CHOICE CRISIS MANAGER- now if they want to investigate further-the man knows how to tell the truth, has been, always did-he will come out stronger. I think if their bluff is called they will back down-any more info that comes out will be scrutinized and prove Clarke's case. Come ON the guy coordinated CIA and FBI he is no dummy he has them by the short and curlies...Between him and Edmonds (FBI Translator), Bush is outdated SPAM.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

3. Note the headline says "GOP."

A month ago, that would have been "Congressional leaders" or something like that. Looks like the press is finally turning on them.

[Cocoa]

8. they should go all the way

RNC, or even VRWC.

[Nlighten1]

4. Wait...what about declassifying the PDB from August?

Oh, no no no

[gulfcoastliberal]

28. Precisely

Declassify the PDB and lets see if Bush*s claim that he would've "done everything" within his power to prevent the attacks had he any idea what was coming. Liar!

[hang a left]

43. While we are declassifying..............

How about the pages and pages of blacked out 9/11 congressional findings.

[sendero]

5. bring it...

... the more the GOP shines a light on this situation the worse they are going to look.

The more desparate they become, the more bad decisions they make. They just can't help themselves.

[eyeontheprize]

Could they be more transparent?

This will keep Clarke in the headlines, which is fantastic.

There is a thread in GD that says they are going to prosecute Clarke, that's a good use of government funds. I guess they think that the prosecution will vindicate Chimp, I can't wait until a trial! Condi would be forced to take an oath. All of them! This is perfect!

[koopie57]

46. I wonder if they

are stupid enough to actually try to prosecute Clarke. I will be the first to donate to his defense fund. Could they subpeona the president to testify?

And remember when Al Franken was sued by Faux...his books sales skyrocketed AND Faux looked pretty stupid. What judge could send Clarke to jail?

[displacedtexan]

6. But ONLY Clarke's testimony?

What a crock!

[Cocoa]

7. is Scotty being ironic at the end?

"With every new assertion he makes, every revision of his past comments, he only further undermines his credibility," McClellan told reporters.

Asked about Bush's personal reaction to the criticism from a former White House aide, McClellan said, "Any time someone takes a serious issue like this and revises history it's disappointing."


He thinks he's talking about Clarke, but it sounds like it could be applied to someone else.

[UpInArms]

12. weren't we told that

we went into Iraq as "liberators"? To spread democracy? Forget about those pesky WMDs - those are for comedy skits!

Historical revisionists? Yeah, right.

[Sinistrous]

9. This is, of course, bullshit.

There are enough people with the needed clearances who can compare the testimonies to determine if any conflicts exist without making a political circus out of it.

What will happen, IMO, is that the bushites will release selected, heavily redacted snippits form the 2002 testimony and run around saying "see, he lied", while Clark will be unable to discuss the still classified sections that contain the whole story.

[okieinpain]

38. exactly

[CaptainClark23]

10. Yes, please. Its called precedent.

Start opening up those testimonies. Lets all have a good look at who said what when and to whom...

[mobuto]

11. Great!

Thank you Bill Frist for keeping Clarke in the news. Attack him please!

[Beetwasher]

13. Keep It Up Douchebags! Dems Don't Even Have to Lift a Finger!

Thanks for doing the job for us!

BTW, they will NEVER go there. They won't prosecute, this is an empty threat to get the word "perjury" out there in connection w/ Clarke. It's too late though...

[rustydog]

14. Declassify the attendants of the cheny energy task force!

Hypocritical bastards.
They can't refute clarkes testimony, so they try misdirection.

why aren't they outraged at being lied to by Bush?
why arent they disgusted that Bush may have decided to sit and let 3000 people die so he could invade Iraq?
could these people be so partisan, so shallow as to let 3000 lives extinguished for political gain?

[louis-t]

15. Isn't it funny how fast these idiots declassify documents

when their butts are on the line? This isn't the first time. Yet ask them to declassify something that really would make a difference in the world and it's "oh, no, National security, blah, blah..."

[Qutzupalotl]

32. Right. It's not about security, it's about politics.

"To hell with the safety of the American people which might be compromised by declassifying his earlier testimony. We've got political points to score!"

[neverforget]

16. The Dems should respond by making Condi's testimony public.

Bring it on!

[OneBlueSky]

17. Clarke can handle himself . . . not to worry . . . in fact . . .

keeping this in the headlines is just what the doctor ordered . . . just proves once again how stupid these people are . . . as our beerless pleader said, "Bring it on!" . . .

[polmaven]

30. beerless

pleader? Not likely!

[ElementaryPenguin]

48. You are SO right !

Keep in the headlines! You can't buy negative publicity like this!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. The minute I see...

- Cheney's energy task force documents

- Reagan's presidential papers

- Condi under oath before the 9/11 commission

- Georgie's DPB's from the summer of 2001

THEN I'll give a shit about and call for releasing Clarke's 2002 testimony.

Until then...

BITE ME GOP.

:mad:

[GregW]

19. Don't forget Georgie's guvna papers

:eyes:

[daleo]

20. They will look for something irrelevant

If they can find anything, it will be something irrelevant that will be blown all out of proportion. The Clinton impeachment process is the template. This is a dangerous road for them to go down this time, though.

[Beetwasher]

22. CHECK OUT THIS QUOTE!

"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."

This is nothing but BLUSTER!!! I'd be willing to bet there are no discrepancies.

[maggrwaggr]

24. agreed. It's just fodder for their propaganda mills

slimy bastards

[MisterP]

61. linky-loo?

[alarcojon]

62. I saw it at the MSNBC site

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/

“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.”

[returnable]

23. The administration hasn't commented yet...

...very interesting.

Hastert and Frist may be getting a serious talking-to from Dubya soon.

If the administration thought there was anything damning/contradictory in Clarke's 2002 testimony, they would've been all over that from the get-go.

This could blow up in the GOP's face.

Big time.

Happy days are here again :hi:

[Oreegone]

26. This is part of the plot

They want to intimidate people out of testifying in private because it might not stay private. Bastards.

[bain_sidhe]

27. Oh, like the "backgrounder" they declassified?

Chances are, while he was IN the misAdministration, Clarke said stuff meant to put the "best light" on the misAdministration's policies.

As he said when the backgrounder was declassified, that's what Admin. employees - and especially THIS misAdmin's employees - are expected to do. I just hope he makes a more overt connection to the CURRENT testimony by CURRENT misAdministration officials. The implication was there in his testimony on Tuesday - "I was spinning then, just like they're spinning now" - but I want to hear somebody actually SAY in no uncertain terms.

[ps1074]

33. LMAO - saw this on dailykos

A poster there posted this:

'Look for massive redactions

Original testimony:
I believe that the administration was lying about the necessity to invade Iraq. Everything we had researched indicated that Iraq was completely cowed and unable to pose any threat.

Redacted.

I xxxxxx was xxxxxxx Lying xxxxx about xxxx everything.'

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/26/181530/476

I spit my soda all over the kyboard reading it.

[Nordic65]

34. Yes please, keep it up front - all the way to New York

Sorry, slightly OT, but IMO this is really what scares/motivates their desperate behavior


The republican convention i New York - the ultimate undoing of George Bush?

I have a sneaking feeling that the location of the convention itself will have a decisive impact on this election, just like George Bush intended, but for all the wrong reasons.

Controversial from day one for sure, but always intended to exploit 9/11 to the fullest. Problem is, there may not be that much left to exploit come september. His trump-card, war on terrorism, is under scrutiny to such an extent that he might instead be locked in a zero-sum game with no option to escape.

By choosing New York as their venue all the emotions and symbolism associated with 9/11 comes into play. And they are so powerful it's virtually impossible to disassociate one self from them. To put it bluntly, Bush, in a spectacular show of arrogance, has already played his hand, going for broke and laid down his "sure" bet without having seen all the cards.

If they are called upon their shameless exploitation ploy, without any back-up in the form of a good track-record or by then, credibility, it could very well get really ugly and not just for George Bush.

So imagine, five months out and this thing may already have "biggest political blunder ever" written all over it. What do you think?

[Beetwasher]

35. Terrific Post and Spot On!

The NYC convention is going to be an unmitigated disaster for Bush, ESPECIALLY now that his "leadership" in the WOT is being questioned and responsibility for 9/11 happening is being laid at his feet.

Welcome to DU!!

[Nordic65]

40. Heading for fall - BIG TIME

The beauty of it all, they cannot make this go away, thanks to their unprecedented arrogance they set them self up for a fall.


(OT, I first tried to make this a new topic in General Discussion, but I didn't have enough posts so here it went... )

[markus]

37. Leak Condi's testimoney now!

I agree with the poster above. It's time for Dems to take the gloves off. This is a democracy, and short of revealing a specific individual source of intelligence data, I say let it all out and let the truth prevail.

Hell, they should just post it on the Internet overseas.

[Florida_Geek]

39. Frist how dumb are you?????????

Does Richard Clarke look like Bush or Condi? Do you think he would get caught lying under oath about 9-11. Get real Frist!!

[moondust]

42. It's fairly obvious

to the casual observer that spokespersons for organizations in gov't, corporations, private groups, anywhere, do not speak for themselves. Even though it may be your job to make what you consider to be overly optimistic statements on behalf of the organization from time to time, that certainly does not imply that you, the messenger, agree with it all personally.

[Piperay]

44. They are REALLYscared

to death about this whole issue, typical of 'kill the messenger'.

[eablair3]

47. so, when it suits them, they hide it in private & when it doesn't

so, when it suits them, they hide it in private & when it doesn't they want it released.

and, first Condi won't testify. Then she will. But, only in private and not under oath. then, she refuses to testify in public. Now, she wants to testify in public, but not under oath.

Bush fights the 9-11 Commission. Then, he fights against appearing in front of it. Then, he gives in and says he'll appear, but only for an hour. Then, after Kerry criticizes Bush about how he can spend time at a rodeo, but only has an hour for the 9-11 Commission, Bush says he appear without the 1-hour limit.

Now, they wanted R Clarke's tesitimony sealed supposedly for National Security reasons and/or reasons of Separation of Powers. Now, they don't think that suits them, and they want the testimony released.

what a joke these Repugs are.

[Catherine Vincent]

49. BRING IT ON, YA BASTARDS!

[Snellius]

50. Smart, Bill, try to throw him in jail for perjury. Just try.

The right wing is completely imploding.

[mmonk]

51. I say

let them declassify EVERYTHING. I double dog dare them!

[Karenina]

53. I wanna see *monkey-boy

IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS WITH HIS HAND ON THE BOOK TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. Forget everyone else. He da *pretzeldent and an EMPLOYEE of d'Amurikan Volk.

I wanna see him and Kristen, mano-a-mano. How IS IT this *dimwit dauphin sposably representing "democracy" don't answer no questions???
:freak: Heh??? :freak:

[boobooday]

54. They hate it when someone tells the truth under oath

What can it mean? My God, they've got their panties all in a bunch.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[Babel_17]

55. Hmmm, the subtext here

is that everyone who went out on a limb to help shore up the administration is now and forever compromised and subject to administration blackmail.

There's lots of historical precedent for this ..... all bad.

[Dr Fate]

56. When does Bush go under oath?- I'd like to compare his remarks...

How 'bout Condi? Cheney?

[Disturbed]

57. Desperate leads to dumb.

It's almost too good to believe that Frist opened this can of worms. I suspect it's merely bluster. If they did this it opens the door for Condi's testimony, as well. Bring it on, Azzholes!!!

[JoFerret]

58. Clarke is not the issue

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1179088,00.html

[peacetalksforall]

59. Isn't the 2002 report/release the one he sexed up to accentuate the

positive for the Prez...?

Doing his job and they pull that out?

[Junkdrawer]

63. Cat Fud...

[judgegina]

65. I can't believe it!

The friggin house of card is finally falling.

Clarke is very credible. The White House looks a fool. Kerry's response today was spot on: "If Richard Clarke is lying, then he should be charged with perjury." Excellent! That is exactly what every Democrat should be saying to this f#%%ing den of thieves.