BS: Condi Rice on National Security?

Subject: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:39 PM

So Dr. Condolesa Rice doesn't want to testify publicly at the 9/11 Comission? Given her title, national security advisor, and given the scope of the 9/11 comission I'm having a hard time beleiving that she is insistant that she not testify *under oath*. Lie what gives? She was on 4, count 'um, talk shows last Sunday. Whats wrong with going under oath?

(Ahhhh, Bobert, remember what happened to Bill Clinton?)

Nevermind....

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Deckman
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:17 PM

I'm SOOOOOO tired of the white house games! It's obvious that they have something to hide. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:22 PM

They were talking about this on Diane Rehm this morning. Someone remarked on her unwillingness to testify, yet noted that she was "promiscuous" about her approach to the news talk shows.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:58 PM

Shrub only allows liars into the inner circle. At least CondoSleeza Rice is smart enough to not lie under oath.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:04 AM

Is she not going to testify because she doesn't want to, or is she not going to testify because the Bush administration doesn't want her to? Or does anyone even know for sure?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:29 AM

She has met three times with the committee and testified each time. But she refuses to testify under oath and won't testify in public. She yaks it up with all the talk show hosts, but doesn't say anything under oath.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 02:44 AM

Executive Privilege ~~~ remember Nixon? Watergate?

Love, Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:15 AM

The Bush administration has been fighting tooth & nail to say as far away from any 9/11 investagations or commissions, why? There's still so much that they won't turn over to the commission or make public without the threat of a court order that it's become a serious problem in it's self. It shows contempt for the victims & their disrespect for the American public, it's this same disrespect shown to us that they've given to the rest of the world. It also brings their honesty (as if it could be any lower than it already is) into question, here & abroad. Dr Rice needs to be dragged into the fray as well as Bush & the VP, the Wolf, asshole Powell, Rums'field & a few others who have all the info the commission would need. A movement to impeach would be perfect timing for Bush's election campain. If he takes any more rope to hang himself he'd have to hang himself from the space shuttle. Never before has there been a more closed mouthed 'Shadow Government' where questioning the powers that be brands one a terrorist, where the freedoms of the press & speech, where our human & civil rights have been trampled upon. These are the same freedoms & rights that Bush wants to infect the rest of the world with? Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:43 AM

Bang on, Barry.

The trends being set now will not be reversed in generations. In London, they're building a 15-foot concrete wall right round the houses of parliament. That should stop Greenpeace putting any more banners on Big Ben. It won't be great for tourism though, but who cares? "Tourists" equals "terrorists" these days.

All changed, changed utterly.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:38 AM

Tourist = terrorist
protestor = terrorist
teacher union = terrorist
1st grader who says bang = terrorist
baby with colic = holy terror.

Dick, Rice and Rum... = recipe for our current debacle.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 08:58 AM

See also "Democracy's Revenge".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 09:36 AM

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the White House is bringing out all the big guns to discredit Richard Clark... Good, I hope they really piss him off. He seems like the kinda guy who I'd rather not get to fired up.

Plus, they are going back to their old tried-and-true tactics of blaming their failures on Bill Clinton. Hmmmmm? Wouldn't mind him gettin' into the fray himself. Inspite of his problems with the Monika Lewinski deal, he still has more credibility (lies better) than anyone in the current administration. Yeah, I'd love to see him get all riled up and he could really help Kerry by taking Bush on on differences between just how serious a threat Al Queida was perceived to be by the two administrations....

Bush iks very vulnerable here and the Dems. should take advantage of it. Like right yhere and right now, while Bush is on the ropes...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:18 AM

I'd love to see Bill Clinton debate George Bush on this issue. He'd bury Dubya's sorry ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:22 AM

Second that, Maggie. He was more credible when lying through his teeth than W is when sayiong "Good morning". If he does, which I can't vouch for.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 11:58 AM

So Barry's bang-on is he Peter?

Poor soul, I really feel for him, with his human & civil rights all trampled upon, neither freedom of press or speech to comfort him, and him, tapping away at his computer, writing anything he wants to, or cares to invent, about his government, their lies, their corruption and every other action where he can demonstrate their ineptitude, incompetence, etc. In short questioning the powers that be ad nauseum.

What's happened to him? Has he been branded a terrorist? Has he been whisked off to some dark secret location? The answers of course are respectively - Nothing; No & No.

So, "There's still so much that they won't turn over to the commission or make public" Not surprising, there's a war on (not Iraq) - hadn't you noticed? If you hadn't then high bloody time you did.

"contempt for the victims", "disrespect for the American public", what complete and utter rubbish.

By the way Barry and Peter, the Wolf, asshole Powell, Rums'field, as "Bang-on" Barry refers to them, all testified last Tuesday - Do try and keep up will you.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:12 PM

Breaking News: just announced on NPR, that the republican party is attempting to have Richard Clarke's previous testimony under oath to the 9-11 commision "declassified" so they can compare his remarks to look to see if he "lied under oath" during those previous hearings.

Anyone else smell a desperate Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rice witch hunt? Meanwhile, Rice wants another private hearing with the commission. They should put her under oath and then see what she has to say, but they won't. They'll let her do her mischief without facing any consequences.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:14 PM

I'm not sure, but I believe Condi Rice is giving "sworn statements" in private, which means she is under oath.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:33 PM

I doubt it PDC. I think the administration, concerned about the separation of powers, will continue to resist the NSA to testify before the committee under oath. This is not a new thing. Executive priviledge has been claimed in similar curcimstances during previous administrations.

She has requested and additional appearance, in private, before the committee to refute some of the inconsistantcies in Richard Clark's testimony, however.

It's really not necessary for the White House to spend much time refuting Clarke's charges. It has already been shown that he is not to be believed due to the sudden emergence of a background briefing he conducted for members of the Press in, I believe, 2002, when he claimed that the Bush administration was conducting a vigorous campaign against Al Quida. I'm sure it's available somewhere on the Internet if any of you are interested.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 02:11 PM

Rice and the rest of the administration refuse to take an oath because they know they are lying through their teeth. Clarke has in no way been discredited, contrary to what DougR would have you believe. It will get nastier and nastier in weeks to come as they dig out whatever possible or invented dirt they can find on the guy. Maybe he filched some pennies from his mother's pocketbook when he was 6. Crucify him! Kerry's comments on the Republicans were too kind. Not only the worst bunch of liars, but shameless, hypocritical, gutless, arrogant, and crass.

The victims of our aggression in Iraq and the hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded American soldiers are not just so much political capital to be spent by the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice and Bush et. al. for whatever ideological corner they have painted themselves into and believe in so desperately. And DOugR don't bother to trot out your "what about what Saddam Hussein did to his own people' arguments, that does not justify our doing more of the same. Never will. 'two wrongs' and all that, do the math.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

Bill,

Tell them how you really feel, why doncha? I applaud from the corner!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 03:44 PM

let me say further, then, that I am so sick of this lying bunch of liars that I propose we change the longstanding and perfectly descriptive term for BS, (not Breeze Shooting, the other one) with an even more apt and descriptive term for the act of saying things with absolutely no regard, respect, or even the slightest understanding of the truth, to wit,

Bush Shit

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 03:54 PM

and of course we can all now use the more genteel and acceptable form of the expression, with the complete and utter disbelief and disgust it usually calls for. so intstead of saying 'bull' from now on I will be saying 'Bush'

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:00 PM

did anyone see the footage of BUsh making jokes about not finding those wmds (are they under the table?) at a party the other night, wonder what the families of the 600 dead soldiers, 3500 wounded ones not to mention 10,000 plus dead Iraqis (and counting) would say about that.

hey Teribus, if the Bush Admin. is so concerned about wmds? and terrorists getting hold of them, how come there wasnt even a PEEP from the white house when AQ KHan the Pakistani father of the bomb
openly admitted to trading nuclear secrets with Libya, North Korea etc. and the whole nuclear black market that came to light.
Musharraf immediately pardoned him, (meaning there can be no investigation)
(going after Iraq is laughable compared to this).

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:43 PM

Bushwah has been an established slang term for decades. Deriving from "bourgeois", it means the kind of two faced double talk associated with burreaucrats.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:35 PM

"hey Teribus, if the Bush Admin. is so concerned about wmds? and terrorists getting hold of them, how come there wasnt even a PEEP from the white house when AQ KHan the Pakistani father of the bomb openly admitted to trading nuclear secrets with Libya, North Korea etc. and the whole nuclear black market that
came to light."

yes, Teribus, i'd be interested in seeing one of your briefs on that one.

also, Clarke replied to the accusations about the background info statements at the hearing. clearly he was acting in his position as a member of the administration to take the facts and put them in the best light to credit the president. as he said, it happens every day in washington. it's called spin. and if this is the best they can come up with to divert attention from his charges i'd say they better look out. more officials have come out today to give witness to the meeting right after 9/11 where bush fixated on iraq. i'm guessing that a public servant with as long a record of good standing with repubs and dems as Clarke seems to have will have enough defenders to wipe the bushslime off.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:42 PM

oh, one other thing. why would anyone take the word of a person who will go on TV with talking heads to refute staements and charges while refusing to testify under oath (which means she's subject to criminal charges if found to be lying) over a person who makes his statements under oath, to a bipartisan commision that is sure to have hostile questioners, and in public while fully aware of these same risks? seems to me you've got to be pretty ideologically petrified to buy that bill of goods.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 08:08 PM

*Partisan petrified* is more like it, NW. If Bush were to declare that apple pie was being replaced with dog-doo pie as a new symbol for what's American, T would ask for seconds...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 09:14 PM

"Rice and the rest of the administration refuse to take an oath because they know they are lying through their teeth. Clarke has in no way been discredited, contrary to what DougR would have you believe."

Rice is the only member of the Administration asked to testify by the commission who did not testify under oath.

I admit the difference between Clarke's testimony and his book are not enough to support any charge he's not telling the same story. I don't know about the comparison with his 2002 testimony.

On the other hand, whatever Clarke's perception of the focus on terrorism in the Clinton and Bush administrations, neither accepted his most aggressive proposals for dealing with terrorism. More to the point, as I understand it, when senior officials of both administrations were asked whether Clarke's proposals have prevented 9/11, both responded that they believed they would not.

If that's the case, why am I supposed to get excited about Clarke's testimony? Because Bush would rather have attacked Iraq, but accepted that we had to concentrate on Afghanistan first after the attack?

That's kinda the point made in the Seatle Times yesterday:

"The Sept. 11 commission hearings are being broadcast in political stereo.

"Those listening on the political right hear half the argument — that former President Clinton is to blame for not stopping the terrorist attacks of 2001. Those listening on the left hear the other half — that President Bush is to blame.

The result so far is that neither side accepts a view blaming or excusing both presidents. 'Each side is listening to the side it wants to hear,' said John Zogby, an independent pollster based in New York. 'I don't see it changing minds or swaying people one way or the other.'

But it sure keeps us talking, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:16 PM

"Rice is the only member of the Administration asked to testify by the commission who did not testify under oath."

but she's the person with the answers. she's the one who said noone could have predicted anyone using airplanes as missiles. as long as she refuses to testify under oath, she's the one with the credibility problem. and i don't buy the separation of powers thing. if 9/11 "changed everything" as the fearmongers remind us daily, then finding out what really happened should supercede any prior convention. the release of the clarke background briefing, approved by the whitehouse to fox news, is unprecedented. never done. but not only did fox news release it, they cut away from the live testimony of clarke to run it immediately when the question came up. now if that doesn't confirm fox as the videoPravda- propaganda arm of the repubs, i don't know what does. i wonder how soon the whitehouse will release r. novak to reveal his sources in the plame case.

by the way, i think there is enough blame to go around for clinton and bush but the event happened on bush's watch and he should have made an apologetic statement to the families (as clarke did) a long time ago. oh, and has one single gov't official lost his job or resigned over the 9/11 failure? hint-the answer is no.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 12:10 AM

'If that's the case, why am I supposed to get excited about Clarke's testimony? Because Bush would rather have attacked Iraq, but accepted that we had to concentrate on Afghanistan first after the attack?'

Because Bush would rather have attacked Iraq, who had no connection with 911 because of some personal agenda of his & of his boys

And because he did attack Iraq on fraudulent grounds before he got through "hunting Osama out of his hole, dead or alive.' because of some personal agenda of his & of his boys.

Bush's mad obsession with Iraq shows more clearly all the time, and Clarke is bringing more evidence of it.

Arguing whether 911 could have been prevented, by either Clinton of Bush, is futile, so far at least. But whether Bush used 911 as a pretext to attack Iraq seems clearer all the time.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 12:37 AM

"Because Bush would rather have attacked Iraq, who had no connection with 911 because of some personal agenda of his & of his boys"

But, Clint, you already knew that. What did Clarke tell you that was new?

" but she's the person with the answers"

GUEST,guest from NW, according to Bob Kerry, Rice was very forthright and answered their questions in ways that would do the Administration proud. So far as I or anyone else can tell, there are no answers. No one comes out looking good in this one, not even Clarke whose plans come off as too weak, too strong or too random to do much good.

"I'd love to see Bill Clinton debate George Bush on this issue. He'd bury Dubya's sorry ass."

After Kerry followed Clinton's speech last night, I understand a lot of people realized how much they miss Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 03:49 AM

"But, Clint, you already knew that. What did Clarke tell you that was new?"

the idea that bush was fixated on iraq and mislead america to pull it off IS news to aproximately half of the american people amazingly enough. i knew it, clint knew it, you probably knew it, but the masses of america won't know it and believe it til someone with clarkes reputation and standing comes out with it AND manages to survive the inevitable bushslime. let's hope he does. and let's hope the country does.

"... according to Bob Kerry, Rice was very forthright and answered their questions in ways that would do the Administration proud."

i'll bet she gave great answers. that's her job. but were they the truth? until she's willing to testify under oath and risk criminal charges if found to be lying, as clarke did, i don't believe she's doing anything but putting the best spin she can on what's come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 08:46 AM

NW, you're not suggesting that Bob Kerry was being duplicitious when he made that statement on Hardball the other night? He seemed perfectly satisified with Rice's answers to the commission, just upset with the conditions put on her appearance before them.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 12:41 PM

"NW, you're not suggesting that Bob Kerry was being duplicitious when he made that statement on Hardball the
other night? He seemed perfectly satisified with Rice's answers to the commission, just upset with the conditions put on her appearance before them."

i didn't say or suggest anything about bob kerrey, only included his name in your quote i cited. i didn't see the show you reference, but you say he was satisfied but upset with the restrictions put on her appearence. my statement is also about those restrictions, namely that she not testify UNDER OATH or in public. if she won't speak under oath then as far as i'm concerned her credibility does not reach the level of clarke's. so it seems to me that kerrey and i may be in agreement rather than me suggesting anything about his duplicity.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 12:42 PM

that last post was me, guest from NW.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 01:02 PM

One question: if Rice testified, under oath, to the 9/11 Commission, and her testimony challenged Clarke's account, would you believe her or Clarke?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 01:13 PM

Interesting that Clarke is a registered Republican and listed in his testimony the Republican presidents he voted for. Kind of makes it harder for the Bushes to call him partisan, but they will continue their attack on him in any way they can. Don't people remember Dubya's famous "he tried to kill my Daddy" quote regarding his obsession with Saddam? I think what Clarke had to say about the way the Bush administration came in to office acting like it was still the 1980's is very imporatant.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 01:19 PM

Er, uh, I'm still waiting for replies to my question. Anyone?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 01:52 PM

"I'm still waiting for replies to my question..."

I'd be inclined to believe Clarke; he's been a staunch Republican, he's been good enough for three presidents, two R's & 1 D, and, oddly enough, because he looks like he wouldn't be much fun at a party. I don't necessarily agree with his opinions, but I don't think he's fudging the facts. And I've heard similar stories from other sources of Bush's tendency to demand that facts support his stand - political or scientific -instead of basing his stand on the facts.

But that's a judgement. It's time to find some of those independent witness to the conversations. Or similar ones.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:06 PM

happy to reply to your question. if rice testified under oath and gave starkly different accounts of events that occurred (not just different opinions about things that might have happened) then i would start looking for other witnesses to corroberate the testimony. then i would weigh the testimony, the other witnesses, their past records of service and truthfulness and make an assessment about who was more believable.
i can't say i'd believe one or the other because i don't make my judgements on a partisan basis. i try to listen to both accounts (and other accounts by witnesses because i know that contrary to those who see everything in black-white, good-evil, with us -against us terms there are usually more than two sides to every story. in fact, most stories are round.) and make a judgement based on facts.

by the way, dougR, still waiting for a reply to my question about specific bush lies over on the "popular views of the bush admin." thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:19 PM

Please forgive a bit of thread creep, but I came across this item this morning and it just blew me away with its honesty, especially given what is - and has been - going on with the Bush administration, lies, coverups, evasions, killings. The following piece comes from a grassroots organization made up of American veterans from various wars, people who have actually been there and have first-hand experience rather than concepts or political rhetoric.

It is one of the best-written arguments against American-style war that I've seen. I would appreciate comments. Here are the first two paragraphs:

"We are veterans of the United States armed forces. We stand with the majority of humanity, including millions in our own country, in opposition to the United States' all out war on Iraq. We span many wars and eras, have many political views and we all agree that this war is wrong. Many of us believed serving in the military was our duty, and our job was to defend this country. Our experiences in the military caused us to question much of what we were taught. Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the U.S. armed forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences of your actions will be for humanity. We call upon you, the active duty and reservists, to follow your conscience and do the right thing."

"In the last Gulf War, as troops, we were ordered to murder from a safe distance. We destroyed much of Iraq from the air, killing hundreds of thousands, including civilians. We remember the road to Basra -- the Highway of Death -- where we were ordered to kill fleeing Iraqis. We bulldozed trenches, burying people alive. The use of depleted uranium weapons left the battlefields radioactive. Massive use of pesticides, experimental drugs, burning chemical weapons depots and oil fires combined to create a toxic cocktail affecting both the Iraqi people and Gulf War veterans today. One in four Gulf War veterans is disabled."


Veterans Against War

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:34 PM

While avoiding testifying under oath, Condi Rice still manages to hit every talk show and TV channel she can, with the possible exception of Animal Planet and the Weather Channel, and does all she can to character-assassinate Richard Clarke. Instead of presenting any kind of evidence or reasonable argument, she angrily scolds anyone who tries to raise questions. I've heard a few commentators, including a couple of conservative ones, say that unleasing Rice as an attack dog was not a good move on the part of the Bush administration. She makes herself very easy to dislike.

These folks have been trying for some time to get answers and, until now, have got nowhere. It took someone like Clarke to knock a few gaps in the Bush administration's stonewall.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,27 March 4:27 PM
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:35 PM

If she testified under oath, and Clarke did as well, and the two versions differed...., well then somebody's telling lies, Doug R.

Would you have any objection to an investigation which determined the truth....?
And would you accept that, no matter what?

Isn't that what this is all about in the first place Doug?
Getting to the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 05:08 PM

"But Doug can't handle the truth!!!"    --(paraphasing a line in a movie delivered by Jack Nicholson)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 05:49 PM

"Interesting that Clarke is a registered Republican and listed in his testimony the Republican presidents he voted for."

Oh, but if you're going to talk about Clarke's personnal issues to find insight into his credibility, you have to wonder if Clarke resented having to report to a lower level White House official, an effective demotion for a Washington, and to being passed over for promotion prior to resigning. I'm sure he harbors no resentment and has no interest in selling his book.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 07:15 PM

No, I don't have to wonder... and frankly, I don't think he's trying to sell his book... Clarke's credibility is excellent! If you compare him with the 'in the loop' administration officials, he easily out shines them.

Is Humpty loosing his balance? ...and why have all the kings men stopped what they're doing, as they gaze t'wards 'His Majesty'?
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 08:09 PM

"Interesting that Clarke is a registered Republican and listed in his testimony the Republican presidents he voted for."

"Oh, but if you're going to talk about Clarke's personnal issues to find insight into his credibility, you have to
wonder if Clarke resented having to report to a lower level White House official, an effective demotion for a
Washington, and to being passed over for promotion prior to resigning. I'm sure he harbors no resentment and
has no interest in selling his book."

the difference between these two statements is that in statement number one we hear facts testified to UNDER OATH at a public hearing and in statement number two we hear sarcastic character assassinting speculation from strick as to clarke's motives. perfect illustration of the difference between clarke's claims and the bush admin. response. and the reason why at this moment clarke's credibility is higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 08:23 PM

Yo Dougie: Condi Rice has proven to be untrustworthy so I'd have to trust Clark's words over hers... Remember the "mushroom cloud" lie? That was Condi Rice...

Now, seein' as GUEST from NW is doing a fine job of representin' the way I see things, I'll just go play my geetar and let NW fight wid the knotheads......

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 09:37 PM

Until someone pins her down by making her take an oath, Rice can make prejudicial statements and cast as much doubt as she can muster on Clarke. Once she's under oath, then she has to substantiate her claims, and she can't. The entire Bush administration can see that she can do damage as long as the media is willing to let her go on the air and condense her statements into little poison sound bites against Clarke.

Do you remember the James Stewart line in the movie Anatomy of a Murder that he delivered right after the prosecutor protested his line of questioning and the judge said he had to stop? His client at the table asked something along the lines of "how can the jury 'forget' that you just asked that?" to which Stewart replied "they can't" and grinned--he knew once he said it the idea was going to stick, even if the judge said to ignore it. That's where Rice is--as long as she's not under oath she's throwing out those ideas that no one can make her correct or take back. And people won't forget that she said them, even if she was lying about it. The Bush administration is BANKING on this.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM

"the difference between these two statements is that in statement number one we hear facts testified to UNDER OATH at a public hearing and in statement number two we hear sarcastic character assassinting speculation from strick as to clarke's motives."

The fact that Clarke read into the record that he voted for Republicans impresses you?

Here's some additional testimony from under oath that wasn't disputed:

"Rice and Hadley decided that Clarke's CSG should report to the deputies committee chaired by Hadley, rather than bringing its issues directly to principals. Clarke would still attend principals committee meetings on terrorism but without the central role that he had played in the Clinton-era small group...

He (Clarke) told us that he considered this move a demotion to being a staffer rather than being a de facto principal on terrorism."

Tenet rather than Clarke was briefing Bush directly. This is the primariy basis for arguing that the Bush administration too terrorism less seriously than Clintons? That the President got his briefings from the head of the CIA instead of a staffer? You don't think that's a potential motivating factor for a man of Clarke's obvious pride?

I'll grant you that the "information" that Clarke was passed over for promotion came from the White House. This information, that Clarke felt he had been demoted, is in the record and never disputed.