The W
Views: 97846621
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.7.07 1056
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Richard Clarke
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(1003 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (16 total)
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 2921/6714
EXP: 37277270
For next: 326902

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#1 Posted on 28.3.04 2235.26
Reposted on: 28.3.11 2235.59
So it's been a couple of weeks now since his allegations were made public, and since his testimony for the 9/11 commission.

Any thoughts on Clarke's allegations? On the claims against his credibility? On the White House's refusal to let Condi Rice testify?
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 616/2693
EXP: 8782155
For next: 206664

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#2 Posted on 29.3.04 0821.19
Reposted on: 29.3.11 0825.22
Who really knows. The conservative Rep's cite him as a Clinton hack and two timer who constantly changes his story. The Dem's call him a courageous whistle-blower type who has the courage of his convictions. The truth is likely in the middle. I suspect that both Bush and Clinton have plenty of errors in their fights on terrorism. Bush should just let her testify and get it over with. Politicos still haven't learned from Nixon's stonewalling. Let whatever damage may be there out and you have 7 months to do damage control. The rumors are likely worse than the truth.

Clark is likely makiong alot of money from this and that is all I am sure of.

(edited by DrDirt on 29.3.04 1349)
The Amazing Salami
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 707/1000
EXP: 2109935
For next: 104174

Since: 23.5.02
From: Oklahoma

Since last post: 3703 days
Last activity: 3703 days
#3 Posted on 29.3.04 0850.47
Reposted on: 29.3.11 0853.02
I don't know if there is anything the Bushies want to hide, but I do think forcing Rice into a public hearing is a bad idea. Bad precedent.
Nuclear Winter
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 32/524
EXP: 750752
For next: 15457

Since: 9.11.03
From: Bedford, Michigan

Since last post: 122 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 29.3.04 1057.09
Reposted on: 29.3.11 1058.40
I don't understand why everyone is having a fit that Rice won't testify in public. What does it matter if nobody see's it in public, or if nobody see's it on C-Span.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 641/2159
EXP: 6272079
For next: 120720

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2208 days
Last activity: 2205 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on 29.3.04 1223.20
Reposted on: 29.3.11 1229.01
    Originally posted by Nuclear Winter
    I don't understand why everyone is having a fit that Rice won't testify in public. What does it matter if nobody see's it in public, or if nobody see's it on C-Span.


Because whether there's anything to the following statement or not I don't know, but it leads people to feel like there's something being hidden or something she doesn't want to admit to. I'm not saying that's the case, but that's what it's going to look like.

And in an election year, perception is reality.
The Amazing Salami
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 716/1000
EXP: 2109935
For next: 104174

Since: 23.5.02
From: Oklahoma

Since last post: 3703 days
Last activity: 3703 days
#6 Posted on 29.3.04 1225.57
Reposted on: 29.3.11 1229.03
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    ...it leads people to feel like there's something being hidden or something she doesn't want to admit to.


But that's just spin. The NSA has ALWAYS testified behind closed doors. This is nothing new. But coming out and saying, "She should testify publicly," totally spins the issue. Ridiculous if you ask me, but effective I suppose.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 51/2169
EXP: 6253196
For next: 139603

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 36 min.
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 29.3.04 1236.59
Reposted on: 29.3.11 1237.39
Now come on Josh, you and I know this is just politics. She's being nailed to testify in public, when she's already done so in private and it's only because of what Clark said.

Funny how Clark has such strong opinions but kept them quiet until his book came out.

Plus she's already said she will tesitify again in private, not under oath. While the press makes a big deal out of the "under oath" part, you can be charged with a crime for false testimony in this case whether you are "under oath" or not, so it's really pretty pointless.

The Dems just want her to be there denying every allegation on tv. Because she looks mad all the time and her saying "no" a lot will look bad, even if she's telling the truth.

Even if she does testify in public, at best this is a he said/she said case and that won't resolve anything. that's why they are pushing to have Clark's testimony to be declassified from 2002. Cause that will be one of the only things that could help them in this situation.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 642/2159
EXP: 6272079
For next: 120720

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2208 days
Last activity: 2205 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on 29.3.04 1242.01
Reposted on: 29.3.11 1242.42
    Originally posted by The Amazing Salami
    But that's just spin.


I don't disagree with that. But like I said, in an election year it's ALL about the spin, and the last thing President Bush's camp should want in this situation is to look like they're behind the pitch. Especially when there's an accusation out there of the magnitude that's out there.

EDIT: Wade, OF COURSE it's just politics...and there's one tried and true formula in the hisotry of elections and that's whoever plays the game better wins, period. Right now, they're getting outplayed and the odd part is Kerry's gotten to not use up his MUDSLING cards and gets to sit on the sidelines, which is where he should be for this.







(edited by Blanket Jackson on 29.3.04 1345)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 618/2693
EXP: 8782155
For next: 206664

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#9 Posted on 29.3.04 1352.19
Reposted on: 29.3.11 1352.29
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
      Originally posted by The Amazing Salami
      But that's just spin.


    I don't disagree with that. But like I said, in an election year it's ALL about the spin, and the last thing President Bush's camp should want in this situation is to look like they're behind the pitch. Especially when there's an accusation out there of the magnitude that's out there.

    EDIT: Wade, OF COURSE it's just politics...and there's one tried and true formula in the hisotry of elections and that's whoever plays the game better wins, period. Right now, they're getting outplayed and the odd part is Kerry's gotten to not use up his MUDSLING cards and gets to sit on the sidelines, which is where he should be for this.







    (edited by Blanket Jackson on 29.3.04 1345)


I thought "W"'s advisors were smarter than this. They are taking a bath, especially when even the Rep's on the commission want her. Get it done and behind you or this just gets worse.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2965/4700
EXP: 21380885
For next: 455777

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1185 days
Last activity: 982 days
#10 Posted on 29.3.04 1450.27
Reposted on: 29.3.11 1450.58
Anyway, it looks like Clarke's problems go back at least five years.

EDIT: This story doesn't help his cause either...

(edited by Grimis on 29.3.04 1552)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1612/2093
EXP: 6486253
For next: 164437

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#11 Posted on 29.3.04 2250.36
Reposted on: 29.3.11 2252.11
Grimis...spinnin' the links as always. All I can say is read the stories, not just what the orange text says.

I think the Bush administration is scared letting Rice testify in public. Not because Rice has so much to hide, but because maybe other advisors on other issues do. And if it ever came up, they don't want the precident.

Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2966/4700
EXP: 21380885
For next: 455777

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1185 days
Last activity: 982 days
#12 Posted on 30.3.04 0617.38
Reposted on: 30.3.11 0617.43
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    I think the Bush administration is scared letting Rice testify in public. Not because Rice has so much to hide, but because maybe other advisors on other issues do. And if it ever came up, they don't want the precident.
In all honesty, I would rather have no National Security Advisor of any party testify in public like this...
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1193/6225
EXP: 32276632
For next: 190895

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on 30.3.04 0722.20
Reposted on: 30.3.11 0722.21
From Drudge:

1999: CLARKE DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!

MORE

On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!

The congressional record; Senator Bennett:

Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.

We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule.

As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here.

He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.

So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing.

We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here, but that is what has taken place in the last 10 to 12 hours.

So with that word of explanation and, as I say, disappointment to many of you, I will now officially call the committee to order.

The committee will come to order.

DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 620/2693
EXP: 8782155
For next: 206664

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#14 Posted on 30.3.04 0825.25
Reposted on: 30.3.11 0828.08
Let her testify under oath and behind closed doors. I agree that some things need to be kept quiet and we don't have a right to know everything. However, I think our representatives on appropriate committees do as does this commission.

Something seems a bit fishy because they are waging all out war on Clarke. I am sure this and the last administration didn't do all they could. This isn't an indictment but I think an inability to conceive that something as evil as 9/11 could happen on our shores. Personally, I don't want to blame anyone but have our government figure out how to stop errors like this from happening again without trashing the Bill of Rights.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 861/1084
EXP: 2417601
For next: 44263

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2903 days
Last activity: 2900 days
#15 Posted on 30.3.04 1348.44
Reposted on: 30.3.11 1348.50
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Let her testify under oath and behind closed doors. I agree that some things need to be kept quiet and we don't have a right to know everything. However, I think our representatives on appropriate committees do as does this commission.

    Something seems a bit fishy because they are waging all out war on Clarke. I am sure this and the last administration didn't do all they could. This isn't an indictment but I think an inability to conceive that something as evil as 9/11 could happen on our shores. Personally, I don't want to blame anyone but have our government figure out how to stop errors like this from happening again without trashing the Bill of Rights.


I would agree completely. And it seems that Clarke feels awful about what happens, as his apology seemed very sincere and heartfelt. For whoever the Congressman was to criticize him for it is absolutely despicable.
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 2927/6714
EXP: 37277270
For next: 326902

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#16 Posted on 30.3.04 2258.51
Reposted on: 30.3.11 2259.01
Not surprisingly, the congressman that harshly came out against Clarke was Bill Frist, who some people are saying might be the Republican candidate in 2008 (unless, of course, Bush extends the Patriot Act to make him King of America).
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Another feel-good story from the Courts
Next thread: So I got paid to get President Bush on video...
Previous thread: 8 Terror suspects arrested in England
(1003 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Richard ClarkeRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.306 seconds.