Well, I took it as a suggestion from one person to an old friend that perhaps he might want to mend another’s fence that had been damaged by his uncharacteristic actions. Seems a nice suggestion to me.
[sub]Thanks for the welcome… I never knew eCheck routing was that slow![/sub]
Or, rather, he’s looked it over enough to be assured there are a couple of really suggestively juicy sound bites that can be pulled out of context and played up in the media.
“See! Out of the twelve thousand words he spoke, here’s a seven-word phrase that can be interpreted to mean Clarke thinks Bush is the best president evar!!1!1!! Woot!”
Perhaps there’s that too. Still my point stands, that his remarks are not inconsistent. So the OP is wrong, as are subsequent comments along the same lines.
Huh. How do you get that, Izzy?
There’s “two entirely different stories under oath” and “no knowledge that there were any discrepancies”. So if he didn’t know there were any discrepancies, how did he know Clarke was telling two different stories? Absent factual differences, all that’s left is the differing tones of the two accounts. And that’s a pretty damned weak reed to support the allegation of “two entirely different stories under oath”.
Well I think it is a pretty strong reed. A pretty damned strong reed. Almost a full-scale fence-post, in fact. So does Bill Frist, and he got elected Senate Majority Leader by being a very smart guy. So there.
Well, you can think whatever you want, and I can’t stop you.
I think it’s a pretty good support for “this sure sounds different from what he told us back in 2002. Maybe we ought to look up his old testimony, and compare the two.” But “two entirely different stories under oath”? You don’t know that until after you’ve compared. Which he hadn’t.
Wow, how can I possibly rebut that? I mean, it’s clearly impossible that anyone who isn’t a very smart guy could win high office in the USA, right?
I think you’re on the right track here, but are not lining up your phrases correctly. Here’s how to compare it: “this sure sounds different from what he told us back in 2002” is the same thing as “two entirely different stories under oath”. “Maybe we ought to look up his old testimony, and compare the two” is the same as “declassifying his testimony would “permit an examination of Mister Clarke’s two different accounts””.
Again, Frist’s position is that Clark testified twice under oath and sounded very different in those two sets of testimony. There may or may not be direct technical contradictions, but based on the differences in overall testimony there is good reason to suspect that direct contradictions may also exist, for which reason we should declassify his earlier testimony.
No contradiction at all - sorry.
You can’t. It is useless to resist us.
I assume you’re trying to prove that Bush must be even smarter than Frist. Good point. We probably can’t even begin to comprehend the intelligence of Bush.
That’s because standardized IQ tests don’t work for single-digit numbers.
A quote from an NBC story, provided by the indispensible Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo:
In other words, the CIA is assisting Bush in his political character assassination of Clarke. As Marshall says:
Disturbing.
Hey, have you considered applying for a slot at the new liberal radio network? Liberal political humorists are what they are after, apparently. They start today, so you’d better hurry.
DoctorJ, I agree with your post, if the story is true. Is there any reason why I can only find it on left-wing blogs?
Only if Mr. Frist remembers that two-year-old testimony to an exceedingly precise degree of accuracy.
But unless you’re asserting that Frist has a photographic memory, they differ significantly.
Since Frist would have had to have heard the testimony in the first place to even compare his recollection of it with what he’s hearing now, I’m assuming that Frist wouldn’t even have to do that to go back and look at the testimony again before making wild accusations.
Except that’s not what he said. He said he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. Not any of that other stuff you kindly made up, which I’m sure Frist would appreciate if he knew.
At any rate, it’s pretty clear what’s being said now: Clarke’s called Frist’s bluff by requesting declassification of his entire testimony and supporting documents, so that any of his statements that are declassified are accompanied by their context. Frist suddenly seems completely uninterested in pursuing this matter, even if (as DoctorJ reports) the White House and the CIA are still preparing to play ‘gotcha’ if they can get away with it.
Can’t argue with you there.
To the contrary, Frist likely does not have a photographic memory - despite being a very smart guy, as mentioned above. In fact I don’t know if Frist even heard the original testimony himself at all. But what he does remember - or heard from someone who does - is that the general gist of the testimonies was strikingly different. This fits the term “two entirely different stories under oath” precisely.
The idea that Frist would need to have a photographic memory is based on your own self-serving assertion that Frist meant there were contradictions in specific details. No basis for this in actual fact.
This is already addressed in my previous paragraph. Again, he does not have recollection or knowledge of Clarke’s precise words from two years ago.
Much of this post seems like deja vu all over again.
There is no difference between what I said and Frist said. In fact - and get ready for a surprise here - when I said what I said I said that this is what Frist meant. Simply repeating Frist’s words as if there is some contradiction to what I said does not advance things here. Assuming that is your goal.
Hmm… maybe I should drop him a note.
Truth of the matter is that, being the compassionate conservative that I am, I would gladly help out Frist in his hour of need. But in this case I don’t think it is necessary.
I don’t know how you might know this. The press does not issue daily bulletins on Frist’s actions or interests.
Maybe you have a direct line to Frist. If you do, let him know how I’m kindly making stuff up for him here. Perhaps he would appreciate it after all.
Then why’d he toss out those accusations of Clarke contradicting himself in the first place? If he was unsure because he didn’t recall Clarke’s original testimony, wouldn’t checking stuff first before lobbing accusations be the smart thing to do?
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. His accusation about two different stories is something he was very confident of. What he’s not sure of is if there was actual perjury. His original accusation did not state that there was definite perjury - only that it was worth checking to see if there might be.
In sum, he is pretty sure of the things he actually said. He is not sure of the things his political opponents prefer to think he said. It’s hard to control for that.
So you’re saying he can base such an accusation on what he heard from someone else about someone’s testimony two years earlier?
There aren’t enough :rolleyes: in the world.
No, it’s based on the accusation that Clarke told two entirely different stories under oath. Different how? Wouldn’t a decent person want to base such an accusation on clear fact, rather than hazy recollection?
Aww, forget it. Apparently in your world, such standards don’t exist.
I’m done banging my head against IzzyWall.
Yes.
I notice that much of what you post concerns matters that you did not personally witness. And you can get quite hysterical at times.
The two stories under oath being different is a clear fact. Only the specific details are a “hazy recollection”.
Why don’t you try this?
“Liberal good, conservative bad
Liberal good, conservative bad
Liberal good, conservative bad
Liberal good, conservative bad
Liberal good, conservative bad
Liberal good, conservative bad
Liberal good, conservative bad
Liberal good, conservative bad
Liberal good, conservative bad
Liberal good, conservative bad”
This is essentially the same thing that you are doing already, but a lot simpler.
Sorry, IzzyR, but before you go accusing RTFirefly of weasling, you better check yourself in the mirror. Your argument essentially boils down to “Frist never used the word ‘perjury,’” which is as limp-wristed as the Bush Administration’s insistence that George never used the phrase “imminent threat.”
While it is true that he never used the term “perjury,” he’s sure insinuating like hell that Clarke lied before Congress under oath, in 2002 – and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the implications of that.
And yet, just a few hours later, he was backpedaling away from that very same charge, and trying to weasel out of his earlier accusations.
So either Bill Frist was throwing firebomb accusations earlier without any recollection of what Clarke actually said, or Frist is a weasling idiot. Which is it?
The words to focus on here are “if” and “examination”. From your own quote: “if he lied under oath to the United States Congress”, “if it is found that he has lied before Congress”, “an examination of Mr. Clarke’s two different accounts”. There’s reason to believe that Clarke may have lied; let’s check to see if he did. Very simple, no weaseling involved.
It seems that if a Democrat calls for an investigation of something, he is an honorable man seeking to uncover the truth. But if a Republican does the same then he is “insinuating like hell” that the guy is guilty. (And denying the insinuation is weaseling). Maybe one day I’ll have this all figured out.
If Frist raped those little kitties before dissecting them…
This just in:
Reliable sources confirm that on several occasions, Bill Frist’s penis was positioned within inches of the nether regions of those little kitties.