Is this proof of perjury by Ashcroft?

[Career Prole]

I was looking for something completely unrelated, and stumbled on this. On its face, it sure looks perjurous. What say ye?

Testimony of Attorney General John Ashcroft
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
(NOTE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEN DEVIATES FROM PREPARED REMARKS)
December 6, 2001

Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch, members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. It is a pleasure to be back in the United States Senate.
On the morning of September 11, as the United States came under attack, I was in an airplane with several members of the Justice Department en route to Milwaukee, in the skies over the Great Lakes. By the time we could return to Washington, thousands of people had been murdered at the World Trade Center. 189 were dead at the Pentagon. Forty-four had crashed to the ground in Pennsylvania. From that moment, at the command of the President of the United States, I began to mobilize the resources of the Department of Justice toward one single, over-arching and over-riding objective: to save innocent lives from further acts of terrorism.
America's campaign to save innocent lives from terrorists is now 87 days old. It has brought me back to this committee to report to you in accordance with Congress's oversight role. I welcome this opportunity to clarify for you and the American people how the Justice Department is working to protect American lives while preserving American liberties.

From: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2001/1206transcriptsenatejudiciarycommittee.htm


9/11 Commission Transcript: U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft

THOMPSON: Acting Director Pickard testified this afternoon that he briefed you twice on Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden and when he sought to do so again you told him you didn't need to hear from him again. Can you comment on that please?
ASHCROFT: First of all, Acting Director Pickard and I had more than two meetings. We had regular meetings.
Secondly, I did never speak to him saying that I did not want to hear about terrorism. I care greatly about the safety and security of the American people and was very interested in terrorism and specifically interrogated him about threats to the American people and domestic threats in particular.
One of the first items which came to my attention -- which I mentioned in my opening remarks -- was the question of whether we wanted to capture or find and kill bin Laden.
ASHCROFT: I carried that immediately to the national security adviser and expressed myself in that matter.
Together with the vice president of the United States, we got a briefing at FBI headquarters regarding terrorism. And I asked the question, Why can't we arrest these people because I believe an aggressive arrest and prosecution model is the way to disrupt terrorism? These are things about which I care deeply.
When the Senate Appropriations Committee met on May the 9th, in the summer of 2001, I told the committee that my number one priority was the attack against terror; that we would protect Americans from terror. I wrote later to them a confirming letter saying that we had no higher priority.
These are the kinds of things that I did in order to communicate very clearly my interest in making sure that we would be prepared against terror.

From: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04105/300543.stm

Both instances are referred to as testimony which I believe requires an oath, no?
Ashcroft appears to state clearly in December of 2001 that he made terrorism his priority only after 9/11...he's quite clear on the date. He even cooperatively adds that that's when bush* started taking it seriously as well.
Yet before the 9/11 commission, he testifies that terrorism was his "highest priority" in May of 2001.
These dates are important, because one of the main things the commission (and America) wanted to know was when did the bush* administration make protecting against terrorism a priority, and Ashcroft seems to quite clearly testify to two different dates.
Did he not perjure himself then?

[proud patriot]

1. For a minute I thought he was going to plead the 5th today

:shrug:

[Career Prole]

2. No...not today! December 6, 2001 and April 13, 2004.

I'm talking about before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 2001 and the 9/11 commission back in April. Check the bolded parts of the excerpts I posted.

:bounce:

[Career Prole]

3. Anyone know?

Kickin' in hope of an answer. :shrug:
:kick:

[Career Prole]

4. Half-hearted kick...

:kick:

[LittleApple81]

5. Don't get discouraged. I ain't no lawyer so I cannot comment. But

it seems to me that he perjured himself. Do you want to send this info to the Jersey Girls (9/11 victims' wives?) I think they have an address on the web where you can submit stuff.

[Career Prole]

6. Thank you! I sure appreciate the tip!

I'll do that. :D

[BeFree]

7. Veddddy interesting

Sounds like perjury to me. At the very least ya know he's lieing about something. He can't even keep his story straight!

Thanks for this CP

BTW: the way things are going, all he has to do is plead "Reagan" and he'll be excused.

[Career Prole]

9. I sent the links and testimony dates to the Family Steering Committee

at http://www.911independentcommission.org/
If nothing else I hope they can make him uncomfortable for a while. Their smugness gets on my nerves. :mad:

[Steven_S]

8. Sure looks like it....

I think perjury involves willful intent to deceive.

He would, of course, say he mispoke but I would sure like to see any and all non-fabricated memos and documents to support his contention that terrorism was his number one priority.

I wouldn't think there are any.

[Scoopie]

10. Possibly...

but, he could be telling the truth in his delusional, evil mind. Here's how.

The Bushies want to equate Iraq with terrorism, even though most of us thinking people know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and little to do with any other organized terrorism.
However, we all know the Bushies were planning an invasion of Iraq from the moment they set their appointed cowboy boots into the White House.
Therefore, Ashcroft can say that A.) They were concentrating on terrorism (Iraq) in May 2001 and B.) They were concentrating on al-Qaeda after 9/11.

I'm not making excuses for the evil Asscroft - I'm just telling you I know how the game is spun now.