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.

[metoooo]

bring it on...make my day...kerry throws down the gaunlet

[Bob]

Richard Clarke is not a Democrat.

I wouldn't be quite so sure of that statement.

His only documented political contributions have been exclusively to 'rat candidates. His teaching partner and good friend, Rand Beers(?), is the kerry campaign's foreign policy adviser.

[FreeReign]

"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.

Clarke is believable or Clarke will get prosecuted?

Kerry sets up a false premise.

Clarke won't get prosecuted AND Clarke is not believable.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Sez who? He's only donated money to Democrats, and admits to voting in a Republican primary exactly once in his life -- for John McCain!

I have to stand corrected after continuing reading this thread. I was going by Clarke's self-statements (so the answer to your question is "sez Clarke"... which I should have known proves nothing :)

I was not aware of his donations nor of his voting records, just that he claimed to be a Republican. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that his Republicanness turned out to be (what now seems like) a phony front designed to insulate him from criticism.

I was wrong. Clarke is, by all evidence, a Democrat and it now seems likely to me that one can add partisanness to the other charges (of incompetence, insubordination, blinkeredness, etc) against him when evaluating his trustworthiness. Thanks for the correction,

[Terry Mross]

You're right. The Republicans would be prosecuting a Republican for perjury, something the Democrats would never do.

[Eva]

I am sure that the Bush administration will prosecute, because if he did lie before the 9/11 commission, he lied before congress in 2002. There is NO excuse for lying, under any circumstance.

[OldFriend]

Actually, Clarke claims to have voted for McCain in the VA primary.

That ought to prove he's NO republican.

[Dr. Frank fan]

you're probably right - see #85

[BurgessLau]

Thank you for posting your comment. It sets exactly the right context. The issue is not electoral politics, but legality or illegality, and therefore, ultimately, right or wrong in society.

[NYCVirago]

Frist was on the Senate floor, asking that the committee hearings be declassified.

I'm aware of that. But the White House itself cannot prosecute Clarke for perjury.

[jackbill]

Do you think Clarke has any idea the extent to which he has been hung out to dry? I'm guessing he was promised cover for his recent allegations. Big mistake.

The Partisan Media has been covering for him so far. And they will continue to do so because it suits their purpose.

If the House or the Senate attempts to prosecute Clarke - and they should - the Partisan Media will claim that it is a partisan prosecution. Believe it.

[Eva]

How 'bout is they prosecute Kerry for leaking lies from the Contra Hearings, which he headed?

[Smartass]

The statute of limitations might have gone stale
on for 1971. However, his being at the meeting to
assassinate U.S. Senators, and remaining silent all
these years, is ripe!

[mylife]

I challenge Clarke to take up the mantle and begin litigation on the current administration!

Public perception of aggression is an odd bird and I think Kerry (or his advisor's) knows it.

GW's style isn't that of an aggressor despite how dems try to paint him.

[TN4Liberty]

LOL, meanwhile Clarke eases over to Kerry and out of the corner of his mouth says, "Hey man, ixnay on the erjerypay."

[NYCVirago]

I was not aware of his donations nor of his voting records, just that he claimed to be a Republican. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that his Republicanness turned out to be (what now seems like) a phony front designed to insulate him from criticism.

No problem -- the media has done its best to paint him as a Republican, when he most definitely is not! For one thing, they keep on saying he voted for W in 2000, even though I have yet to see a quote from him stating that. If I hadn't been following what fellow freepers had said on this, I would have thought he was a Republican, too! Take care.

[mylife]

Make Clarke the issue, not Bush.

Exactlty

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

meanwhile Clarke eases over to Kerry and out of the corner of his mouth says, "Hey man, ixnay on the erjerypay."

Omigawd! You owe me a new monitor, now! ROTFLMAO!!! :)

[UltraKonservativen]

He claims to be a republican but all of his money has gone to support democratic candidates in the past.
PROSECUTE THE LIAR.