(Actual quote) “But if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far more serious matter. As I mentioned, the intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke’s previous testimony declassified so as to permit an examination of Mr. Clarke’s two different accounts. Loyalty to any Administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied before Congress.”
versus
(Imaginary quote) “It is uncertain whether Mr. Clarke’s testimony today is consistent with his previous testimony. To clarify the issue, the intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke’s previous testimony declassified so as to
permit an examination of Mr. Clarke’s two accounts.”
:confusion:
Now, see, from where I’m sitting, the first quote is bombastic, finger-pointing j’accuse television, and the second is a level-headed request to simply review the data and see if everything’s consistent or not. For whatever reason, Bill Frist went with the former – but when he got called on it, he weaseled out and tried to claim he said the latter.
Seems obvious to me. But then, I don’t have my head up George W. Bush’s ass.
Yeah, the second (imaginary) quote is a wimp statement. Us conservatives are not wimps as a rule, so you can only imagine what kind of forceful leader we have in Bill Frist. (Which is besides for him being a Very Smart Guy).
(The context of Frist’s quote was that Clarke had admitted to some dissembling to the media, but excused it as loyalty. So naturally, Frist’s remarks took on a tone of “well let’s see him get away with this one”.)
Hey, don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. Judging by your posts here, you just might be better off if you did.
Since Frist admits he has a wimp memory with regards to the testimony in question, it seems appropriate. Only idiots make affirmative accusations without a firm grasp of the facts.
Seems more like his idea of the situation is “before you were for us, now you are against us!” I’m not sure how that trumps itself up to perjury, and if there are two different stories, it seems pretty painfuly obvious why: the same reason we are not getting full candor from anyone currently employed to defend this or that politician.
That isn’t about any sort of substantive mistatement. Before Clarke was pointing out all the good things the B administration had done, and now he fushing out that story.
This sort of reminds me of the Republican senator who recently publically complained about how his party offered to make his son’s political campaign very wealthy if he went along with the medicare bill. Then, apparently, someone must have told him that this accusation fits all the legal qualifications for attempted bribery. You can bet he backpedaled the hell out of those statements (though the matter is still under investigation).
Good point. Only problem is that this applies to the most of the liberal posts to this thread.
One of the main advantages of not being a wimp is that you could care less about some losers putting out cutesy flash cards. Hey, make sure to get the whole set.
Apos, I’ve responded to your point repeatedly. Just pick any of my posts at random.