MORE Joshua Micah Marshall re: Frist and Clarke

[Trajan]

A follow-up to CatWoman's thread ...

Talking Points Memo: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

-snip-

Though I didn't see it, I read it. And it's a truly egregious text. To have read it on the Senate floor is the sort of act that will, I think, permanently change how I see him. In any case, see the post below for more details and we'll be discussing it more later. But look at this short passage in a story tonight on MSNBC ...

{Italics is from MSNBC : 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.”

That's astonishing.

I never cease to be amazed at these guys' ability to outpace my ability to impute bad faith to them.

A few hours after accusing Clarke of perjury, he admits that he has no idea -- not just no idea whether he perjured himself, which is a fairly technical question, but no idea whether there were any inconsistencies at all.

He was just running it up the flag pole. Maybe, maybe, maybe ...

-snip-

These people are shameless ...

[capriccio]

1. Ft. Sumter...

This is how it must have felt just before the first shots were fired. This election better work.

[Solomon]

2. Right. As I said in the other thread. A perjury trial is not gonna

happen because it's the last thing they need. Clarke would kill 'em and use it as an opportunity, and he has a right to a jury. No. No.
Blowing smoke about it in today's world is better than a trial. They don't have to prove anything, just throw out allegations and all the people who don't really pay attnetion (which is most people) come away with the idea that there's an issue with Clarke's credibility.
This is the best they can do with it.

[The Magistrate]

3. The Most Important Point To Me, My Friend

Is that Rice refuses to address the matter under oath: the only conclusion that can be fairly drawn from this refusal is that her testimony would be perjury, and proveably so....

"Desperate men do desperate things, and stupid men do stupid things. We are in for a desperately stupid summer."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[oasis]

4. Goss most likely tipped Rove off on possible contradictions in Clarke's

testimony. Rep. Porter Goss is a slimy GOP shill and ex-CIA. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a special relationship with Poppy from way back in their spook days.

[jean]

5. Clarke said to Larry King - they're throwing up flak to distract us

Just flak - - - so we don't talk about the substantive issues in this case.

I think Clarke has been taking note of everything since this admin transitioned into the WH and has been his usual impeccable, pile-driving self in organizing the case against them. I doubt he can be sucessfully impugned and knows just how to push all of their buttons.

[Solomon]

6. Yep Yep.

[oasis]

12. Clarke will be going on "Meet the Press" Sunday. Into the lion's den.

[Jane Austin]

7. Well, let's see . . . .

Clarke was part of the Bush administration and he was pushing hard to get Al Queda, so technically he was correct in his testimony 2 years ago.

And he's also correct in saying now that officials higher than he in the administration wouldn't listen to him.

The two statements aren't necessarily contradictory.

[Solomon]

9. Excellent point. Which is precisely why Clarke will kill them if they

persist.

[rumguy]

8. Frist isn't even worthy of speaking Clarke's name

Frist is a shill for the shrub admin., that's the bottom line. They are so afraid of Clarke I can smell their fear here in Seattle...fucking Goopers!

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Remember that statements made in Congress are absolutely protected

against any legal suit. Statements made in other venues are not. Frist can go on the floor and say anything at all with impunity, immune from any legal challenge. Although he might be ridiculed or even run up against some sort of censure action (not likely given the political balance) he can lie his ass off there without risk, but his statements off the floor are subject to some limits. This explains the difference between what he said when relatively protected from legal challenge and later when more exposed.

[jeanmarc]

11. How did it get to this?

I know the nation has had it's problems throughout history, but this is a bad, bad time.

Hey Shrub, at what point are you going to start 'uniting?' That bastard needs to go.