WP: GOP Wants Look at Clarke's Words

[kskiska]

Frist Calls for Opening '02 Testimony To Explore 'Entirely Different Stories'

By Charles Babington and Walter Pincus
Saturday, March 27, 2004; Page A01

The Senate's top Republican called yesterday for declassifying Richard A. Clarke's testimony before a House-Senate intelligence panel two years ago to determine whether he lied, as partisan exchanges intensified over allegations leveled this week by the Bush administration's former counterterrorism chief.

In a blistering speech from the Senate floor, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Clarke "has told two entirely different stories under oath" -- first in private before Congress's joint intelligence committee in July 2002, then last week before cameras at a hearing conducted by the commission looking into the same topic, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Frist offered no specific contradictions other than to say that Clarke was "effusive in his praise" of the Bush administration's handling of terrorism matters in his 2002 testimony but was sharply critical this week.

"If he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far more serious matter" than being inconsistent with reporters, another Republican charge aimed at Clarke, who served in the White House under four presidents.

Some Democratic lawmakers who heard Clarke's testimony in both settings said they found no inconsistencies. Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who was co-chairman of the joint intelligence inquiry, said in a statement, "To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week." He said Clarke's 2002 testimony should be declassified "in its entirety," not in selected ways to favor the White House.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28227-2004Mar26.html

[fearnobush]

1. declassify it, not in selected ways to favor the White House.

"To the best of my recollection, there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that testimony and what Mr. Clarke has said this week." He said Clarke's 2002 testimony should be declassified "in its entirety," not in selected ways to favor the White House.

[librechik]

2. bring it on

they seem to like sticking their fingers into hornet nests.

[aquart]

3. Frist thinks he's rapacious enough to play with the big boys.

I'm going to enjoy this.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. Big mistake by Frist.

[Informed Consent]

5. Bring It

As long as there are simultaneous investigations to see if Rummie lied under oath and also to ascertain why Condi won't testify under oath. Then we will see who winds up prosecuted for perjury. :spank:

[cynicinthesouth]

6. This isn't about Perjury

they don't want to prosecute anyone on perjury. They just want to show the public if there are two different versions of Clarke's recollections. Let's hope to God there are not.

[w4rma]

7. I don't have to hope. I am absolutely positive there aren't.

I've paid very close attention to this matter, and I absolutely trust Clarke's honesty and integrity.

[progressivebydesign]

8. No.. they just want to exploit him and destroy him for political gain!

I'm sorry.. but I find it so fucking offensive that these people have absolutely NO compunction about de-classifying something that was classified for national security, if it can benefit them POLITICALLY! Pigs.. they're just politically motivated, evil pigs. (no offense to real pigs).

[Skittles]

10. I don't give a shit if there are

there is a big difference when he was IN the White House as an employee and NOW that he is a CIVILIAN. I didn't speak out when I was in the military; do you have to wonder WHY ???

[July]

11. Pretty charitable view of what they're doing.

They "just" want to help us out with information that might show Clarke in a bad light? Right.

I agree they don't want to prosecute anyone. They just want to stick "Clarke" and "perjury" in the same sentence. As news headlines already show, "Mission Accomplished."

[Kool Kitty]

9. Sure, Clarke's words they want to declassify.

What's the chances of seeing what is actually contained in the 28 blacked-out pages of the joint intelligence inquiry? I'd say that would be a fair trade. Oh, yeah, and get that incompetent National Security Advisor to testify to the committee-in public and under oath. And question Rumsfeld again, but this time, press him a little harder when he says he doesn't remember. A man with such a bad memory should not be in such a high office.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

12. This White house wants it both ways

they think it's fine to spin their lies to the American people..but the minute someone dares come forward and under OATH i might add and is critical of anything they do they must attack their credibility. Arrogant

[UpInArms]

13. Let's declassify that August 6 2001 PDB

while we're at it.

Let's "declassify" Cheney's Energy Papers.

Let's "declassify" this entire mal-administration's hidden agenda.

Frist is a complete ass-licking partisan hack that doesn't give a rat's ass about this county and its citizenry.

[Moderator]

14. Locking

dupage - go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=446309