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.

[Williams]

Sounds like that vacation didn't do much to clear Kerry's head. Unfortunately, no one is going to prosecute Clarke for statements about which administration had a policy, which was more aggressive, etc. All too subjective. But I agree it was stupid of Kerry to step into this. IF the republicans can articulate why he's being irresponsible, and to confront him with Clarke's lies. BUT republicans seldom know how to close that deal with thwe public.

[Peach]

Oops - I'm so sorry, Kent.

That was a letter I sent to the networks and I forgot to take the ending off.

[CedarDave]

Goss is retiring at the end of this term, so he doesn't have anything to lose by pursuing this. I just hope others will join him and nail this liar.

[knak]

personally called Kerry a "bald face liar"

should've called him a melting face liar

[Dr. Frank fan]

This is actually a clever move for Kerry.

-he keeps Clarke on the front pages
-he looks like he's on the side of law & order
-he's not interested in this just for scandal-mongering, he wants to get to the bottom of things!
-a prosecution would force one set of statements, or the other, of Clarke, to be considered a "lie". Kerry's betting it would be the statements Clarke made while working for Bush. A Bush admin. member convicted of lying.

One of the more intelligent moves I've seen on Kerry's part. So far I've been less than impressed with Kerry, but after all there must be a reason he's hung around the Senate doing nothing for so many years....

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

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.

With a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, as well as a sitting Republican President: the very LAST thing I'm worried about, right now, is difficulties in getting things decently declassified. :)

[KellyAdmirer]

Kerry is the one turning this campaign into ugliness. This proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. To offer someone else's head on a platter as a test of the administration's will - that is really something.

[Fiddlstix]

[Dr. Frank fan]

mylife:

Its the right thing to do but will it spin as Pubbies attacking a poor lil dem during an elevtion cycle?

Richard Clarke is not a Democrat.

And it is the right thing to do. But you are missing the fact that there is definite upside for Kerry to make this "challenge".

Clarke will be exposed as having lied while a member of the Bush administration.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

S'cool. Honest. Just kinda startled for a moment, there, was all. :)

[cyncooper]

So your advice is ignore Clarke and let him lie under oath with impunity?

Unbelievable! That is outright nonsense.

Sorry, but trouble comes from strategizing and not dealing with right and wrong and letting laws get broken for political calculations. That is the wrong road to go down.

[cyncooper]

Oh, and Kerry is an idiot.

[mylife]

I havent delved into all of this but it does appear to be a shrewd move by "Kerry" standards

[sinkspur]

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

Only if Clarke is believeable.

If it can be proven that he's not, Bush's numbers go up.

No prosecutions are necessary; just put Clarke's contradictory testimony out there, and talk about it.

And tie his sorry butt to Rand Beers, who's advising the Kerry campaign.

[Argus]

I'm starting to lose it over this election and it's only March. I can't take another six months of The Kerry Treatment.

[Ingtar]

I suspect they will trot out another time bomb like Clarke just before the election, so that there will be insufficient time to show the lies. As they did with the drunk driving charge in 2000, I expect they will do this time. This was just a dry run.

How I wish that President Bush had cleaned house upon assuming office.

[LibLieSlayer]

"BRING IT ON"!!!!!

BwaaaaHaaaaaHaaaaa! You would think that this guy eventually would learn! I guess his "team" spent a little too much time stokin' the bong, while "Speedo Boy" was tumbling down the slopes!

After his whuppin' over this clarke debacle, he will see his "economic plan" disemboweled!!!

LLS

[NYCVirago]

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.

I disagree. The Rasmussen numbers showed this wasn't a winning issue when Clarke was painted by the media as a truth-teller with no axe to grind. Prove that he lied, and it becomes a whole different kettle of fish.

[Dr. Frank fan]

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.

You might be right but I'm not sure why you would assume the (D)s don't want to see Clarke be prosecuted.

A lot of people here are assuming that a Clarke prosecution would be bad for the (D)s. I'm not so sure. I suppose everyone is assuming that he would be prosecuted for lying before Congress in last week's testimony by comparing it with 2002's testimony.

I'm not so sure it wouldn't be the other way around.