I’m getting fairly annoyed that the ‘giving comfort’ part of treason is getting misinterpreted as making our enemies feel good.
What the fuck is this sort of distended rationalization by the egghead liberal set all about? Anyone who doesn’t toe your fucking line is automatically dense, obtuse, or deliberately trolling. You don’t need to make it more simple, idiot. You need to make it more sound. Aside from which, I haven’t defended the Washington Times in any way whatsoever. Kindly confine yourself to redistributing property only, and stop trying to steal thoughts out of people’s heads to redistribute for your personal plan to save humanity. Fucking commie.
Well, since you put it that way …
… Do your own fucking research.
Sorry RTA. Your a cat person, eh?
For Christ’s sake, NurseCarmen, the cite is right there in the section that you quoted. It’s from his own autobiography. I bet you can guess the name of the author and find it on Amazon. Did you really want a cite or did you just want to make a dead cat joke?
Haj
Although I am a Democrat, I have defended Frist in the past and considered him generally an honorable man.
His accusations about Clarke’s testimony before the Senate without actually knowing what that testimony was are absolutely unconscionable!!!
And the notion that he would scold Clarke for apologizing to the families victimized by all of the circumstances which contributed to the failure of the government to prevent the attacks on 9/11 – has me incensed! The final straw was the remark Clarke being the only common denominator over the ten year period.
He is my Senator and I have lost all confidence in him. He says that he is not running for reelection to the Senate. I plan to be one of those that reminds him of that pledge. I will also write a letter and call his office and make sure other friends are aware of this.
Thanks for the thread. And Vibrotronica, I appreciate the link very much.
If there continues to be no real basis for his accusations against Clarke, I think that Bill Frist should be censured by the U.S. Senate.
He can’t be. Once again, see Article 1, Section 6.
Why would the Senate (which is certainly not “any other place”) be prohibited from censuring comments by Mr. Frist?
(Mind you, this is politics as usual and I foresee no censure in his future, but I see no prohibition in the Constitution against the Senate delivering a hand slap for his remarks.)
My girlfriend is in med school, and she is doing quite well without cutting up cats.
I got no dog in this fight, but I do wonder. Is Clarke a senator or Representitive that falls under the protection of the constitution as the OP suggests? I do not think that Mr. Clarke did anything wrong, but I think the OP failed to read the constitution.
Although you presumably meant this sarcastically, I think this is an accurate and ample explanation of Frist’s comments. A person can give two different testimonies that slant very differently without having any direct technical contradictions. If Clarke gave two sets of testimony, the general gist of one of which was that the Bush administration is doing a great job fighting terrorism, and the gist of the other being that the Bush administrating is doing a terrible job, the Senate might well consider itself to have been snookered. However, if you can parse all the words and phrases and not find any direct contradictions, he would likely not be guilty of perjury.
I would guess that Frist is familiar enough with Clarke’s earlier testimony to know that it was overall favorable to the administration’s terror-fighting campaign, in marked contrast to his second testimony, but that he has not looked it over in enough detail to say that he has perjured himself. Still in light of the overall contrast in testimonies, it would be worth a look to see if he has.
A good point, Tom. I think you’re right.
The OP read the Constitution as you did. The OP referred to the Constitution’s protection of Sen. Frist’s words spoken on the floor of the Senate about Mr. Clarke, not of Mr. Clarke’s words.
Now the OP will stop referring to himself in the third person. 
Lib, if you read back to El Gui’s first post that you responded to, it’s pretty clear that he’s ticked about the Moonie Paper’s journalistic sin of omission in leaving out Frist’s later backpedaling, which undoubtedly left the WT’s readers with the impression that Frist had proof of Clarke’s perjury in his back pocket:
Article 1, Section 6 had nothing to do with El Gui’s point. So can we all make nice, now?
I hope we can. You might have missed my post just above yours.
Well, I saw it, but the strand of discussion about whether the Senate could censure Frist for what he said there, didn’t really bear on your back-and-forth with El Gui about the Moonie Paper.
There was no back and forth. He posted. I responded. It ended. Are you okay lately?
I’m fine, though I’ve got to wonder about you.
Your exchange with El Gui ended with your saying:
This tirade of yours was completely due to a misunderstanding on your part. You owe him an apology, methinks.
Excuse me? You’re the apology bookkeeper? You just got through saying we should all make nice. What exactly did you mean by “we”?
Lib, I think he meant “those posting in this thread who’d like to fairly treat each others’ comments.”
So you’re right; doesn’t seem to include you at the moment.
Actually, I was wondering whether it included him. Noticed your post in ATMB. Glad you made it in!