could someone please explain to me one thing...

[AgadorSparticus]

where are the democratic leaders? why aren't they raising a stink in the media about the contradicting lies or that condi is not testifying like everyone else?

i tend to stay far, far away from cable news so it is a great possibility that i missed their attempts at keeping the other side accountable.

[kalian]

1. I really don't want to say anything....

but the cynic in me wants to rant... :evilgrin:

[MAlibdem]

2. well...they're playing it safe AND being civil, unlike BushCo

if richard clarke does turn out to be lying, allying oneself with him will be damaging. If he isn't, you get the benefits anyway.

and democrats are generally more civil, and wont go so nutty as the radical right to shout louder. we have the truth and moral high ground. all they can do is yell...very unpresidential...mauahaha

[sadiesworld]

6. They ARE speaking out:

John Kerry has said that Frist should request a perjury prosecution if he believes Clarke is lying.

Both Bob Graham (former ranking democrat on the Intelligence Committee) and Jay Rockerfeller (Graham's replacement) have both said that Frist's charges are baseless, Clarke's testimony is consistent, and Frist should call the justice department if he is serious.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. And Democratic aides

who have reviewed Clarke's 2002 testimony say that there is nothing to Frist's charges. Some Democratic leaders are saying go ahead and release it-along with the suppressed pages from the 911 report, the report on foreign involvement with the hijackers, and Condi's testimony. Check out todays NY Times for the article. The Dems are fighting back, and in a way that points up the Repuke's hypocrisy!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. At this point, the Democratic leaders don't have to say anything at all...

...for some unknown reason (to me, anyway) the press has seized on this topic and have begun to question why Lyin' Leeza is willing to give so many interviews but is not willing to testify publicly under oath.

The question was also asked this morning why Frist has decided to back off his stated desire to get certain documents declassified so that the GOP can go after Clarke for perjury. That also tells me something.

On CNN they stated that polls were showing that nine out of ten Americans polled had heard something about Clarke's testimony under oath. They were amazed at such a high percentage.

I say let this run by itself...the less the Democratic leaders are involved, the less the GOP can claim partisanship. Right now, it's the GOP against the press.

Why am I strongly reminded of Watergate?

[sallyseven]

5. They alsdo backed off on the statement

that Clarke had a meeting with bush about Iraq being involved. Little things in the press you have to search for.

[seabeyond]

4. graham

said open clarke 2002 testimony, there isnt a contradiction, and frist backed down

[Warpy]

7. They've been dropping the ball for DECADES

While Scaife funded right wing stink tanks like Eagle Forum and Heritage Foundation have been developing media "talent" to shop around to network news shows as experts on any subject, the Democrats have relied on a few tepid liberal congressmen who are about as exciting to watch as bowls of cold oatmeal.

C'mon, McAuliffe, there are plenty of legitimate experts in the Democratic Party, folks who can form delcarative sentences and who will not be shouted down by pigfaced wingnuts. It's up to you to find them and aggressively shop them around to these talk shows!

[AgadorSparticus]

9. thanks for your replies everyone.