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.

[Owen]

OH WELL, WE HAVE TO EAT THIS ONE.

We have to throw Condi at 60 Minutes Sunday night, and then we have to roll over and let this slide. A prosecution will wave this in the air for the whole campaign, and this week's Rasmussen numbers makes it clear this is not a winning issue. Kerry's pollsters have told him this, and he'd love to have Clarke a prominent issue all campaign long. We have to get this off the radar screen ASAP.

Back to the War On Terror and GDP growth of 5%!!!!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

The presumptive 'Rat Presidential nominee himself just publicly all but BEGGED us to do this.

Back in the south, where I grew up: we called that sort of thing "ground cover." :)

[hobson]

Oh my gosh! That would be hilarious!

[Peach]

1. Rep. Christopher Shays, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said that in June 2000 Clark told the subcommittee there was "no need for an assessment" of the terrorist threat.

Three national commissions concluded the US needed a comprehensive threat assessment and a national strategy. Shays held 20 hearings pre 9/11 and on June 28, 2000 he asked Mr. Clarke, then serving as Clinton's Special Assistant and National Coordinator, Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism, when an all source threat assessment and strategy would be completed.

Clark answered "No assessment has been done, and there is no need for an assessment. I know the threat."

2. In 2000, the Department of Defense Worldwide Conference on Terrorism asked Mr. Clarke's assistant when a national strategy on terrorism would be completed. The assistant responded that a strategy was being developed (in 2000 - the last year of the Clinton presidency). However, no national strategy to combat terrorism was every produced during the Clinton administration.

3. 911 Commissioner Lehman noted to Clarke on Tuesday that his 15 hours of private testimony differed substantially from his public testimony. So substantially that Lehman told Clarke he couldn't believe it. As a result of that, the White House is seeking to declassify whether Clarke lied under oath.

4. On page 127 of Clarke's new book "Against All Enemies", Clarke notes that it's possible that al Qaida operatives in the Phillipes "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building." Intelligence places Nichols there on the same days as Ramzi Yousef, and "we do know that Nichols's bombs did not work before his Philippines stay and were deadly when he returned."

And yet, the Clinton administration focused exclusively on homegrown terrorists, and never talked publicly about this matter. Laurie Mylroie, formerly of the Clinton administration, and others, have since talked about the Iraqi connection to the OKC bombing frequently. Yet your news organization has been largely if not completely silent.

5. Despite Clarke's assertion that he is non-partisan, a few moments research into public records indicates that Clarke has only donated to Democrat's campaigns, never to Republicans.

I would expect a little more research on your part, and an even handed approach to the issues. I expect I will hear that the White House is attacking Clarke's credibility, although I think he has done that substantially to himself.

[mylife]

Agreed, I was only pointing to the matter to spur thought as to "Is this weasel worth our Time right now"

[kellynla]

Don't be surprised if Clarke Bar is investigated by the Justice Department regarding testimony he made in 2002 against what he has stated this week. Either way he lied under oath!

[spunkets]

Where was Kerry when the 'toon was caught in his own storm of lies?

Obfuscation and diversion, that's the game here.

[shield]

Clarke claims to be a republican!!!!

[Mike Darancette]

Throwing Clarke to the wolves. Kerry better watch out since some of Kerry's foreign policy people may be tied up with Clarke

[kabar]

Kerry believes that the Reps will shoot themselves in the foot if they prosecute Clarke. It gives the Dems a martyr and keeps the story going on the front page for months. Hoipefully, the GOP will declassify Clarke's testimony to show that he lied and then let it go.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Also see this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105766/posts

GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony (Perjury Trap ?)
Yahoo News/AP ^ | 3/26/2004 | DAVID ESPO


Posted on 03/26/2004 12:56:27 PM PST by AMDG


Top Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the war on terror.

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.

The Tennessee Republican said he hopes Clarke's testimony in July 2002 before the House and Senate intelligence committees can be declassified. Then, he said, it can be compared with the account the former aide provided in his nationally televised appearance Wednesday before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

[js1138]

If the dems vote against declassifying, they lose. My only fear is that what clark said is too much in the realm of opinion and interpretation to qualify as perjury.

I hope the pubbies have done their homework.

[bootyist-monk]

Bring it On: The Sequel

[William McKinley]

I think that anything that keeps the topic on national security works to our advantage.

[mylife]

Get out!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I would expect a little more research on your part, and an even handed approach to the issues.

Is addressed to me? If so: why, please...? :)

[sinkspur]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Dems did their homework on votes for "declassifying" and must feel safe that it won't happen, therefore, can't prove perjury.

It's a slam dunk in the House. No, the Republicans can declassify House testimony.

[pointsal]

sounds like a deal.....
how about checking O'l Botox-Johnnie on his Kansas City statements while the prosecutors are up and working ....could be a two-fer.

[gatorgriz]

Richard Clarke is a bigot; taken down by a highly intelligent and competent conservative black woman; Condi Rice...

Those on the left, our opposition, is backing a total loser; else why all their screamming?

Hot air backing a cold horse; that's all this is... Ultimately this will blow up in their collective faces; mark my words... Clarke's so far over the top it will make the Dean rant look like kids day.

Face it folks; this is like a bomb exploding in the oppositions ranks; caused by their unmitigated hate and their desire for power; desperately reaching for anything that might help their cause.

Alas, the facts are not on their side; they bought a pig in a poke; and the electorate will see through it with clarity.

[hobson]

Huh? The Rasmussen numbers only show the ORIGINAL reaction BEFORE Clarke's credibilty has been distroyed. IMHO, you are completely wrong on this one.