March 26, 2004
CLARKE V. CLARKE:
Republicans seek to declassify Clarke testimony (DAVID ESPO, March 26, 2004, AP)
Key Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush's handling of the war on terror."Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.
The Tennessee Republican said he hopes Clarke's testimony in July 2002 before the House and Senate intelligence committees can be declassified. Then, he said, it can be compared with the account the former aide provided in his nationally televised appearance Wednesday before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. [...]
One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the initial request for declassification was made by House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee.
Frist, without elaborating, said Clarke's testimony in 2002 was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration."
Frist also noted that Clarke, appearing as an anonymous official, had praised the administration's actions in an appearance before White House reporters in 2002.
Clarke on Wednesday dismissed that appearance as the fulfillment of the type of request that presidential appointees frequently receive.
But, Frist said, "Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied to Congress."
Who ya gonna believe: me or me? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 26, 2004 5:30 PM
How long is the press going to continue to beat this dead horse?
Til glue.
Posted by: oj at March 26, 2004 8:01 PMWill Clarke (and the Democrats) next resort to some version of the defense that lying to Congress is not a crime? I can just about hear it now.
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 26, 2004 9:46 PMAs of now, the talking points for the Democrats are that it would be a violation of national security issues for political purposes, and they want the information kept in its proper place -- of course, if the information makes Bush look bad, they think the proper place is in-between the covers of a $29.95 book from a Simon & Schuster subsidiary division, properly promoted on parent company Viacom's CBS Television Network...
Posted by: John at March 26, 2004 10:52 PMI stated this above - you gotta think the GOP knows the 2002 testimony conflicts with the current testimony or else it would buttress Clarke's case, not weaken it. If it does prove Clarke contradicting himself they need to get it out soon before the message the Bush was responsible for 9-11 sinks in too deep with the electorate.
Posted by: AWW at March 27, 2004 11:19 PM