GOP Leaders Seek Release of Clarke's 2002 Testimony

Yahoo via Washington Post ^ | Sat, Mar 27, 2004 | Charles Babington and Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writers

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Senate's top Republican called yesterday for declassifying Richard A. Clarke's testimony before a House-Senate intelligence panel two years ago to determine whether he lied, as partisan exchanges intensified over allegations leveled this week by the Bush administration's former counterterrorism chief.

•	Bush, Clinton Varied Little on Terrorism
•	15 Iraqis, 1 Marine Killed in Firefight
•	Read Today's Washington Post Online
•	Today in Photos
Search news on washingtonpost.com

In a blistering speech from the Senate floor, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Clarke "has told two entirely different stories under oath" -- first in private before Congress's joint intelligence committee in July 2002, then this week before cameras at a hearing conducted by the commission looking into the same topic, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Frist offered no specific contradictions other than to say that Clarke was "effusive in his praise" of the Bush administration's handling of terrorism matters in his 2002 testimony but was sharply critical this week.

"If he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far more serious matter" than being inconsistent with reporters, another Republican charge aimed at Clarke, who served in the White House under four presidents.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Democrats see nothing inconsistant?

See the full article.

Amazing!

[thoughtomator]

So who has the authority to declassify the testimony?

[samtheman]

I bet Clarke is part of the Kerry campaign. Soros and Theresa are no doubt behind his "change of heart".

[byteback]

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.

copied from yahoo news

[Piquaboy]

The White House has the authority, but I can already hear the Rats screaming.

[international american]

Trap alert!

[thoughtomator]

Too late then. If the WH can on its own declassify, Clarke is toast.

[Steven W.]

Note the weasel wording Clarke used in trying to portray himself as a Republican - in sworn testimony before 9/11 hearings he said stated that the 'last time he was asked to select a ballot he picked Republican'. Of course the last time he would have been facing such circumstances would have been the PRIMARIES of 2000 - not the general election (which would not have ballots unique to each party). Further recall the DemoncRATs were urging their minions to vote in the 2000 primary and pick John McCain over Bush.

[Army Air Corps]

Yep, a trap for Clarke. Kerry is dropping him like a hot potato. The plan that they formulated is crumbling. Condy, a women who is a smart as she is attractive, often stated that she wished that there were a way to speak publicly without violating the seperation of powers. Enter tomorrow's broadcast; speaking directly to the public has not seperation of powers issue. Release the Hounds!

[samtheman]

Note the weasel wording Clarke used in trying to portray himself as a Republican - in sworn testimony before 9/11 hearings he said stated that the 'last time he was asked to select a ballot he picked Republican'.

A steady stream of lies under oath and he's getting away with each and every one of them.

[tomball]

Clinton got away with lies under oath. It appears that Clarke figures he can, too.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

His donations have always been to Democrats.

Someone documented that fact on one of the threads .

Use keyword --Clarke --to see the latest threads.

[samtheman]

His donations have always been to Democrats.

Donations are fine. Open, above-board, reported donations, fine. But behind the scene funding of scum-bag liars to re-invent the past? That's what I think Soros and Theresa are up to. Big time.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Point was he was trying to pass it off that he was a Republican.

He did vote for McCain in a Primary apparently.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

That's what I think Soros and Theresa are up to. Big time.

Would be nice to nail them.

[samtheman]

Clinton got away with lies under oath. It appears that Clarke figures he can, too.

RATS lie under oath. Congress lets them get away with it. And the press looks the other way.

That's politics in America.

[samtheman]

And I bet Hannity is going to nail Soros and Theresa. He's fighting mad and he's not going to sit back and watch those two undermine our democracy. (My prediction.)

[harpu]

If the testimony to the joint House/Senate Intelligence committee, and the testimony to 9/11 Commission Hearing are BOTH under oath...this dumb shit could be in for some serious trouble - if the Pubbies decide to pursue their case.

[artios]

declassifying is a red herring - arrest him. the declassifying aspect is about public opinion. arrest him, charge him with perjury before congress. Lying to congress about this issue may also be related to treason. I say charge him with treason - try him and give him the death penalty if guilty. Why are we screwing around with this like its a shell game?

[Owen]

This is a mistake. Clarke is not a winning issue. Victory in Iraq, victory in the WOT and strong GDP growth are winning issues. Condi Rice will do her thing tomorrow evening and then it is best to let Clarke fade to oblivion until after we win. Then prosecute. There is no hurry and having him on the radar screen is not winning tactics.