Clarke, GOPers and perjury

[radfringe]

The Hounds of Bush* are opening up a BIG can of worms in their attempt to discredit Clarke.



First if they suceed in de-classifying Clarke's testimony - what's to stop Clarke from requesting de-classification of other related testimony? If Clarke ends up being charged with perjury - then he's entitled to a defense. If Clarke "spun" his testimony in July 2002, how much else was spun by other bushies during those hearings?

Secondly, Clarke's testimony in July 2002, as he stated this past week, was presented to emphasize the positive and downplay the negative... yep - the spin machine was rotating at top speed...
The spot light will be on on much spin the bushies have put on what they did or did not do prior and after September 11. It will also raise questions as to how much spin has been used on other issues -- such as Iraq WMDs.

The bushies are hanging all of this on the fact Clarke testified under oath -- this will be the key argument for the Hounds of Bush, and they will have to spin their own arguments to explain the difference between spin and lies. It also raised the question about Condi's refusal to appear under oath. Is she hiding because if she testifies under oath that previous testimony/statements will be called into question because the "spin" won't match?

To my knowledge, the charge of perjury can only be leveled if you had testified under oath. But, what about making appearances in an official capacity? When bush* gave his SOTU charging that Iraq had WMDs - he was appearing as pResident and bound by the Oath of Office -- can he be charged with perjury? When Cheney crawled out of his undisclosed location and gave a speech or media appearance which said that Iraq was a threat because of WMDs -- can he be charged with perjury? The Hounds of Bush will say no.

So what does this mean? This means that you can't believe anything anyone says unless they are bound by a specific oath. That all we were told in speeches, commercials, press conferences are to be taken with a few pounds of salt -- so how are we to believe anything coming out of the government? How are we to differ from "spin" and lies? How will we know the truth when we see it?

Campaign commercials now require a specific statement by a candidate that says he/she endorses the content. Will we have to go a step further and require government officials/candidates to publicly take an oath to tell the truth before they make any sort of appearances in an official capacity?

just my opinion - but in loosing the Hounds of Bush on Clarke in an attempt to discredit him, bush* is discrediting himself and his whole administration.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. .

I really hope they go for it. The more they drag this out, the worse it will be for them. They should have ignored him when they had the chance.

[NormanConquest]

2. This attack was part of the Friday news dump

I think it's just chum...it's a dose of political Levitra for the faithful for the weekend.

[radfringe]

4. chum or not

it's out there and will be part of a Sunday morning talk show feeding frenzy

When Clarke gave his testimony in July 2002 - he did so as an official of the bush* administration and under the direction of the bush* administration. Although bush* is trying to spin national security as a campaign issue -- by going after Clarke's 2002 testimony, the underlying question in 2004 campaign will be --- can you trust anything coming out of the white house?

to call his testimony into question also calls every other bush* official's testimony into question

how much of what bush and his administration say is spin and how much is truth? At what point does spin become a lie?

[monarch]

3. My guess--they don't plan to declassify anything

This is just part of the smear campaign and as soon as they feel that they have gotten maximum advantage from suggesting that Clarke committed perjury, it will be announced that no declassification will be allowed. Bush will then make a statement that HE (unlike those corrupt Democrats) will not jeopardize the security of this country for cheap political purposes.

[radfringe]

5. regardless

even if bush* "makes a statement that HE (unlike those corrupt Democrats) will not jeopardize the security of this country for cheap political purposes." -- it will still leave people wondering if Clarke "lied" while he was a part of the bush* administration, why did he "lie", and who told him to "lie"

Clarke said on Larry King show -- that if he didn't put a nice spin on his 7/02 testimony that he would have been fired. So, how many other bush* officals have put a "nice" spin on their testimony (under oath or not) to avoid being fired?

[slor]

6. I am shocked how these...

people do not seem to think more than one-half a step ahead. But, as we have seen, they seem to have a proclivity for playing into the hands of their perceived opponents. It really does call into question the whole "Mayberry Machiavelli" statement made by the former staffer, these guys are clearly less capable than even Barney Fife !

[Beloved Citizen]

7. My Guess?

The Clarke testimony in question will end up not being declassified for "reasons of national security.' But that will hardly stop Hastert and Dr. Kitty Killer from muttering darkly about what they saw there.

[bucknaked]

8. I'm in the same camp that says this charge has no legs.

This was merely a ploy to emphasize the "Clarke is a liar" RNC talking points that are making the rounds now.

Man, FNC and Tony Snow sure got a boner off that today.

[BeFree]

9. Clarke Lied ?!?!?

What? Did Clarke claim Iraq had WMD? Did Clarke go on TV time and again and lie about WMD?

The liars who lie expose themselves as the liars they are by lying about who lied. Bush lied. Cheney lied. Thousands upon thousands then died in the Iraq attack as a result of those Bush/Cheney lies. That's a fact.

Did thousands die because Clarke lied?

[Justice]

10. Let Me Just Clarify a Couple of Bits of Information

There is the background briefing given by Clarke to a handful of reporters in early August 2002. This was not under oath.
Transcript of that here: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,115085,00.html


Then, in July 2002, Mr. Clarke testified under oath in front of the Congressional Joint Inquiry on the September 11 attacks. This is what Frist wants to de-classify and compare against his testimony this week.

I posted this elsewhere, but read http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ which confirms that Frist howled perjury without knowing even what Clark testified to in July 2002, never mind whether it was at odds with what he testified to this week.