Posted on 03/28/2004 10:52:28 AM PST by mikegi
From the Washington Post article on Clarke's SWORN testimony before the 9/11 commission:
"Under questioning by Republican members of the commission, Clarke, who said he voted Republican in 2000, rebutted charges by the White House that he was engaged in a partisan political attack."
From today's Meet the Press transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: And we're back. Did you vote for George Bush in 2000? MR. CLARKE: No, I did not. MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore. MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Then that makes it worse than a lie because by intending to "decieive" you automatically lose all credibility. Heck you don't even have to lie...just the intention of deception makes you scumbastic!
Look up the definition of "lie" in the dictionary. M-W has "2. to create a false or misleading impression". That was his intent. In fact, the example given at m-w.com is perfectly appropriate: "lied his way out of trouble".
I want to see the question he was asked.
At any rate, Clarke's activities need to be investigated further.
What's with you? First you call Condy Rice a liar. Now you're calling Clarke a liar. You need to get your agenda straight. You can't have it both ways.
After a week of listening to Clarke promote his pack of lies, it's obvious who the liar is and it isn't Dr.Rice.
I know, but the sheeple are seeing it as tit-for-tat. It's much better tactically, IMHO, to label Clarke as spinning wildly, and his case as insubstantial. Branding him a liar allows him to play the victim and distract from the weakness of his claims.
CLARKE: Thank you, John.
(LAUGHTER)
Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot.
-------------------------------------------------------
Here Clarke lies under oath. He was talking about partisanship and wants to "just lay that one to bed" meaning that he cannot be accused of partisanship because he voted Republican in 2000 (Bush was the Republican in 2000). Clearly, he goal was to deceive the commissioners, the press, and all Americans. Deceiving others is lying. I would like to know the criminal definition for lying under oath.
Like writing the outline for a future hit book to be used by liberals against Bush during the 2004 election season while it also defended the Clinton administration?
Naw.....Louie, I ain't that dumb.:)
Yes! But it is his standard way of operating! Sort of like the Muslims do also. Maybe he reads the Koran a bit.
As was said above, he was being intentionally deceptive to the committee, but he did not tell an untruth. The commission should make hay over it, but it won't put Clarke in jail.
Here's the exchange from the MTP transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: And, again, this has become part of the controversy. Again, Senator Frist went to the Senate floor and let's listen:
(Videotape, March 26, 2004):
SEN. FRIST: Assuming the controversy around this series of events does, in fact, drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make a lot of money, a lot of money for exactly what he has done. I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on September the 11th, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce, I think, any plan to personally profit from this book.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: The book is dedicated to those who were murdered on September 11 and you apologize to the families. Would you consider giving the royalties or profits from the book to the children of those families who were murdered?
MR. CLARKE: Tim, long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make a substantial contribution, not only to them but also to the widows and orphans of our Special Forces who have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq. And when we see the results of the book sales, we'll know how much we have to make donations. I also have to consider the fact that friends of mine in the White House, because I still have friends in the White House, having worked there for 11 years, are telling me that the word is out in the White House to destroy me professionally. One line that somebody overheard was "he's not going to make another dime again in Washington in his life." So I have to take that into account, too, this sort of vicious personal attack is also directed at my bank account. But this is not about me making money. It's about getting the truth out. And long before Senator Frist said what he said, I planned to make substantial donations, and I will make substantial donations.
MR. RUSSERT: Forty-two family members wrote an open letter which is in the papers today saying that the book is offensive and profiteering and maximizing book sales because of September 11. What do you say to those families?
MR. CLARKE: Well, I say I'd like them to read it. You know, as to Senator Frist's comments, that it's filled with highly classified information, it was approved by the White House for release. And anything that the White House found in it that they thought was highly classified was removed.
End transcript.
So it's a minor point, but Frist did not claim "the book" contained highly classified information. Clarke didn't listen clearly, counter attacked, but he was wrong about what Frist said. He's been wrong about what a lot of people said.
I love it when I listen to the same things myself and can uncover mistakes first hand. Again a minor point but Clarke is claiming Frist did something he did not do.
1. Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
2. The breach of an oath or promise.
I've sort of been sitting back watching all this happen. Then today, I unfortunately caught an puff piece interview with Clarke on CNN today. In that interview, he was so incredibly slimy that I simply could not sit back and take it anymore. He deceptively implied that the Monica Lewinsky investigation (ie. the Republicans) and accusations of "Wag the Dog" prevented Clinton from taking out UBL and AQ.
It is a fact that Clinton used military action to divert attention from his investigation. The 1998 attack on Iraq began on the very day that official impeachment hearings were to begin in the House of Representatives. The attacks on Iraq stopped the very day that the hearing ended. Then, on the very day that Monica Lewinsky appeared in court for her testimony, Clinton attacked the Sudan and Afghanistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.