Kerry challenges Bush to prosecute Clarke if former anti-terrorism advisor lied - CBS

Yahoo! News ^ | 3/26/04 | AFP/Staff

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

NEW YORK (AFP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry challenged President George W. Bush) to prosecute former national security aide Richard Clarke if they can show that he lied about terrorism policy.

"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath, Kerry told CBS's MarketWatch.

"They have a perfect right to do that," said Kerry.

Republicans in Congress want to declassify testimony Clarke gave before Congress in 2002 that they claim is at odds with accounts critical of the administration in the aide's recently published book.

Clarke, a counter-terrorism advisor to three presidents, published a book this week entitled "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," in which he claims the Bush administration failed to heed warnings of the September 11, 2001 attacks and then focused its attention on Saddam Hussein) rather than al-Qaeda.

He repeated the allegations under oath in testimony before a congressional committee.

The charges prompted an aggressive response from the White House, amid apparent concerns that they could undermine the president's re-election bid in November.

[Maria S]

Seems to me this whole Clarke thing is about:

1. Destroying any credibility Bush has built as far as being a strong, decisive leader;
2. Destroying any chance that Condi Rice might run for President in 2008;
3. Immunizing Bill and/or Hill against any claims that they could have done something about terrorism while in office.

Oh, yeah...
and 4. Make Richard Clarke a lot of money from the sales of his book.

[lavrenti]

Then the administration must retaliate against the media.

There are an array of options available. Putting pressure on corporate ownership, *&^%$ up affiliate licensing for radio and television stations, closing network offices in the Pentagon.

That's just the start.

[LibLieSlayer]

I agree. The partisan media will howl at first. This is a fight that the Administration will gladly take on.

The press will become muted, and then supportive of a prosecution for one reason alone. Mr. Novak’s little slip, Valery "watzhername" Wilson (truncated for security reasons). ;-)

That story should culminate in about August or September. This is but another "brilliant" klintoon strategy that has backfired on the dims.

To borrow (paraphrase) from WWE wrestler and Olympic Champion Kurt Angle (in describing Rove), "He’s good, Damn good"!

LLS

[mylife]

I know Condi isnt a straightline pubbie and there are chinks in the armour but Condi in 2008 would absolutely crush so many DEM whining points that I cant help but entertain the idea

[Libloather]

Kerry challenged President George W. Bush...

Do it...

[Diogenesis]

"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath."

[John Lenin]

If convicted wouldn't the profits from the book be confiscated ? You cannot profit off a crime.

[Eva]

I heard that young spokesperson for Clarke on tv last night, saying the Bush administration has known what Clarke was going to say for months and did nothing to refute it. I think that Clarke and the Dems are shocked that Bush is fighting back in this way. I also think that this was a rope a dope strategy, planned well before Clarke's testimony and aided by Jim Angle.

[Redcoat LI]

I lose the bet I made that horseface would not produce a single good Idea during his campaign.

[drjimmy]

From what I'm reading, the perjury charge will come from his testimony from Wed. (not a Bush admin. official)

This is where Kerry's demand that Clarke be criminally charged is a win-win situation for him. Who do you think the defense will subpeona to testify in a trial if Clarke is charged? Condi, Rummy, Cheney, Wolfie, and maybe even the President. They would be questioned in public under oath about anything and everything related to whether Clarke's statements are truth or lie. The administration would ever allow itself to be put in that kind of situation.

And if the earlier classified testimony is made public, how does the administration justify holding other testimony still secret? The Dems (and the press) will howl that this is selective declassification and demand that other testimony and documents be released.

I think it is the Republicans who had better be careful what they ask for, because this opens up a can of worms that could get everyone messy.

[LibLieSlayer]

Watch Rove and learn.

LLS

[mylife]

Ahhh GW...the King of resting on the ropes only to use them as a launch point AFTER the opponent has just plum tuckered out!

[John Lenin]

It also keeps the focus on National Security and John Kerry is a zero in that department.

[UltraKonservativen]

Why would a republican keep giving money to DEMOCRATS....?

"In 2002, while still on the Bush National Security Council (NSC), Clarke gave the legal maximum limit of $2,000 to a Democratic candidate for Congress, Steve Andreasen, who tried to unseat Republican Congressman Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota. Andreason had been director for defense policy and arms control on the Clinton NSC. In making his donations of $1,000 on July 22 and another $1,000 on Nov. 7, 2002, Clarke listed his occupation as "U.S. Government/Civil Servant," according to FEC records indexed with the Center for Responsive Politics.

Clarke maxed out again in the 2004 election cycle, donating $2,000 to another Clinton White House veteran, Jamie Metzl, who is running as a Democrat for Congress from Missouri. Metzl was a staffer on the Clinton NSC and worked for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) as deputy staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With that donation, made on Sept. 15, 2003, after his resignation from the Bush NSC, Clarke listed his occupation as "Self-Employed/Consultant."

FEC records show that Clarke reported no political contributions when he worked in the Clinton administration in the electoral cycles of the 1990s and 2000, when he said he was a Republican"

RINO !

[Dr. Frank fan]

with all due respect, I think you're assuming Clarke will be charged with perjury during his closed door testimony (is a Bush admin. official). From what I'm reading, the perjury charge will come from his testimony from Wed. (not a Bush admin. official)

Well, I'm not assuming either one, cuz I don't really know what will happen :)

I will say that I'm sure you're right that any hypothetical perjury trial of Clarke would use his more recent testimony as a springboard. My point is that the only real proof that he committed perjury in this testimony is that it contradicts other testimony he gave - if one assumes that that other testimony was the truth, his current testimony must be lies.

But his "defense" can be "but that other testimony *wasn't* the truth. I was lying back then." Even if this is not what happens, I do imagine that one way or the other "his 2002 testimony was exposed as untruthful" could be a primary result of any perjury trial.

[Diogenesis]

The can of worms (if exposed by the complicit media)
IS that Clarke is
1) a paid consultant and paid analyst for ABC
2) has a book publisher owned by the same company that owns CBS
3) has business partner, Roger Cressey, employed by NBC
4) has teaching partner at Harvard working for Senator Kerry's campaign.

There is probably more, but most will remain cosmic secret
because the media is in bed with Kerry in several ways.

[teletech]

Kerry is goading Bush. You try that with a Texan and you'll lose every time. Kerry apparently thinks he has the President in a corner and he can beat him with the Clark lies. This will backfire BIGTIME!

[leprechaun9]

How about prosecuting John Freakin' Kerry for his admitted (under oath) war criminal acts!

[marcinrochester]

The FEC records say Clarke made contributions to Democrats recently, in 2004. He certainly is a Democrat now. He also gave to a (Dem) ex-coworker running for Congress in 2002. The original article in Insight mentioned no other contributions. So there is no evidence I've seen to mistrust his claim to be a lifelong Republican.

I personally think Clarke is an American hero. He is one of the few people in power to really try to do something about the al Qaeda threat. Both the Dems AND the Pubs come off very badly here.

[PhiKapMom]

Clarke is a close associate of Rand Beers and he is Kerry's foreign policy advisor.