In paragraph 1, on the Senate floor, Frist accuses Clarke of perjuring himself, based on his statements under oath before Congress in 2002 and 2004 supposedly contradicting one another.
Then he turns around and says, in effect, “I don’t know if there are any discrepancies or not between the two.”
Nice to know you’d make serious accusations like that without knowing whether there’s any substance to them, Bill.
Lucky for you that you can’t be charged with perjury or libel, since your speech in Congress is beyond the reach of the law under Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution. But it doesn’t make you any less a sleazy liar. If Bush goes down, my money says you’re going down with him.
I should know better than to jump into something like this just after waking up (it’s 8am here in Hippyville) BUT…
The Administration had a copy of Clarke’s book for many months before publication. Despite having every accusation of Clarke’s in their hands, they have chosen not to respond to any of his points but rather to attack him personally every way they can. Frist just demonstrated exactly what’s going to happen to the “Good Republicans” who follow the attack plan - they’re going to look like fools, damn fools and liars.
These guys are desperate. They’re not capable of admitting they erred in any way - a huge defecit in character - and the house they’ve built is proving to have no foundation with worm-filled wood.
(on preview)
Libertarian - that’s classic. He was there the whole time, yet somehow he has no right to apologise. Fucking brilliant…
And yes, I both watched and listened (working at home has its advantages) to the entire hearings. IMHO, Clarke was by far the most credible witness.
Of course I’m biased, in my goofy libertarian-liberal ways…
Bill Frist will say any goddamned thing he’s told to. The man claims to not even have voted until the 1990’s. His function in the Senate is to protect the health insurance industry–his family fortune, which is considerable, came from HCA. Sure he’s a doctor and goes on charity trips and such, but here’s a look at his voting record on health issues. Please note all of the zeros coming from the American College of Obstericians and Gynocologists, the American Medical Association, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and the American Public Health Association. It’s clear his sympathies lie more with the patricians than the physicians. Here are more fun facts about the Senator.
What I find interesting about Clarke, is that he is so deft at spin that he was able that he was even able to sucker Frist. Frist probably read the August 2002 Clarke testimony and thought that it contradicted everything he said to the 9-11 panel. Frist then proceeded to engage his mouth before actually checking the facts. Judging from the actions of Graham (D-FLA) I strongly suspect that there isn’t anything there. But, judging again from the actions of Graham, it probably exemplifies how much spin the administration was putting out, even at the staff level.
So we are forced to decide if we should believe a career backside covering bureaucrat who has admitted on national television that he deftly spun (but technically didn’t lie) under oath to congress.
He spun in August of 2002 to keep his job, and at the request of his superiors. He’s been accused of spinning now to sell a book. If he’s proved anything to me, it’s that thirty years in DC will teach you something. Even the Smoking Gun [url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323042clarke1.html]letter doesn’t really contradict anything he’s claimed.
Thompson tried to corner Clarke, and Clarke gave us the best laugh of the day when gave Thomson a dose
DC reality with the “I’ve done it for several presidents” line. Frist tried to out Clarke, only to later realize that he had nothing. It’s not surprising that the Republicans are resorting to personal attacks and making tenuous claims pointing to Clarke as the one who failed (!) This guy can’t be pinned down, so they have no choice. They have to fight back somehow, and the facts currently aren’t working out in their favor.
My favorite Frist story comes straight from his autobiography; how he would regularly adopt kittens from the shelter when he was in med school, then take them home and cut them into little, bloody, furry pieces. (You know, “for research”.)
I believe this tells us all we need to know about where that guy is coming from as a human being.
Frist said Clarke’s apology “on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his resposibility… Mr. Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct - but that is all.”
Fuck that noise. At least someone had the gonads to apologize. Sorry you don’t think it’s “fair”, Mr. Frist.
“The fact remains,” Frist added, “that this terrible attack was not caused by the United States Government. No administration was responsible for the attack… The attack on 9/11 was the evil design of a determined and hate-filled few who slipped throught the defenses of a nation that treasures its freedoms.”
Under God, with liberty and justice for all.:rolleyes: Why, he even gassed his own people! (Oh, wait - that was the other guy).
Way to obfuscate with meaningless jingoistic drivel, Frist.
I noticed the Washington Times link includes additional remarks by Frist. He is quoted as stating the declassification would “permit an examination of Mister Clarke’s two different accounts.” [Italics mine]
Of course, the Wash. Times fails to mention that Frist later “retreated” (as MSNBC so delicately puts it) from his accusations against Clarke. I think this bit of detail to the story is damn fucking important, but perhaps it’s just me.
OT, but did anyone notice the part in the MSNBC article regarding Rice’s refusal to testify “in public” (normally referred to as “under oath” ) where a senior admin. official says the justification for Rice’s refusal (I assume, the “seperation of powers” excuse) is based on stuff understood by “[t]almudic legal scholars, but not by the people on Main Street”? I thought it was cute.
“Shielded”? From prosecution?? Who suggested otherwise?
I’m talking about relevance in a newspaper’s article, not in some court of law! It was relevant to MSNBC and, from other posts here, it’s pretty relevant to not just to me.
My point was the detail’s irrelevence to the Wash. Times. C’mon Libertarian, I’d be really surprised if you didn’t realize this all along. Any effort on my part to try and make this more simple would border on condescension and the resulting pangs of guilt on a bleeding heart ain’t healthy, you know.
One could almost make a case that Frist’s remarks WERE treason. If he falsely denounced Mr. Clarke(with malice aforethough, IMHO), then he gave aide and comfort to the enemy. OBL has gotta be eating this up, if he’s still alive.
) where a senior admin. official says the justification for Rice’s refusal (I assume, the “seperation of powers” excuse) is based on stuff understood by “[t]almudic legal scholars, but not by the people on Main Street”? I thought it was cute.