Was he reading my posts yesterday? Heh...that's the BOTTOM LINE folks. Anyone who wants to claim Clarke is not being honest should DEMAND he be charged with perjury and provide the proof that backs up their claim.
Check out how Bush's NUMBER ONE SPINNER, Tucker Eskew dances around that issue. HAHAHAHAH.
ABRAMS:
All right, before we talk about some of the legal issues, Mr. Eskew, you believe that you now have the smoking gun tape/document that proves that Mr. Clarke‘s testimony is not truthful, correct?
TUCKER ESKEW, DEP. ASST. TO PRES. BUSH, COMMUNICATIONS: Well, we have evidence where Mr. Clarke himself laid out the case strongly for the president‘s strong action against terrorists. His own words make him guilty of at least shifting stories, if not, shifting loyalties. Not only that, you have commission members today telling the press, telling the public, that Mr. Clarke‘s tenor, and in fact words were very different in private than they were in public as he approached publication of his book. So these are very serious questions, and I don‘t think we even need outside parties to find Mr. Clarke guilty of those shifting stories. His own words convict him of that charge.<???>
<snip>
ABRAMS: Mr. Horner, if the administration believes that these are lies and myths, as they have said in a White House statement, I don‘t understand. I mean I expected them to say we‘re not going to prosecute him. But why shouldn‘t they, if he‘s lying under—to tell—in sworn testimony?
CHRISTOPHER HORNER, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS ATTORNEY: Well, they certainly have the ability to go above the discretion of the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, who has really the right of first refusal on this. But the attorney general, John Ashcroft...
<snip>
ABRAMS: But Mr. Horner, I think the public sees something like the Martha Stewart case, where she‘s prosecuted for lying over something that‘s really you know somewhat irrelevant, but she still lied to federal investigators. And I think if the Bush administration is saying these are lies, they should put their money where their mouth is and prosecute him...
<snip>
ABRAMS: They‘re not going to. There‘s no—no Mr. Eddy, I‘m making a point here and I think it‘s an important point to be made, which is that if they‘re really going to pursue this, and they‘re going to go out and say he‘s lying, I don‘t want to just hear it in the media. I want to see it in a courtroom. If these are lies, if this is a man who is lying under oath, I want to see it.
<snip>
ESKEW: ... two members of the commission who said different things. So let‘s look at the public record here. And when you look at the public record, Dan, which is really what we have to address here today, I haven‘t used the words you‘ve used. I‘d use the words shifting loyalties. You know this is a man...
ABRAMS: Well I saw the word myths...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... I saw the word myths on the White House document.
(CROSSTALK)
ESKEW: ... I‘m not familiar with there being charges for creating myths. There certainly are fairytale aspects to some of this story, but no fairytale is complete without shifting story lines and this one has shifted a lot. You look at this man, what he said today, what he said two years ago to the press. You look at what he said in private to some members of the commission and then what he said today. Where I come from, when you shift your loyalties and when you shift your stories, you‘re called shifty...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601235/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
