Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Contradictions in Clarke's Testimony

So I have a choice: believe JBryan, or Republican Senator Lugar:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/168110_lugared.html

Not that I think it matters. The first time Clarke testified, it was on behalf of the Administration. As he said, he put "the best face on it". And was well-paid to do it.

Same as Rice did today.

Too bad the 9/11 families didn't think it was a particularly pretty face:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...afp/us_attack_rice_families_040408211051

And, as I've said before, too bad the President bowed to the polling data and had her testify at all.

I think I'd believe JBryan. After all, he has a couple of pages of a briefing Mr. Calrke gave on behalf of the Admnistration to reporters. Surely, no one speaking for a politician to the press would ever stretch things to make his boos, the politician, look good.

And besides, what do a Democratic and a Republican Senator who actually saat in on the hearing where someone is under oath really know about that hearing? Far better to believe the Majority Leader, who was not at the hearing, join in character assassination at the behest of the White House.

But it's going to be fun next week when the FBI operatives come in and say (essentially) that Condi lied, and that, no, there never was an order to pursue the investigation from August 6th. Or at least they never received one. And then they will call Condi back in private and ask her to produce evidence of same.

She shouldn't have testified.

This is the "quote" by Ricard Lugar:

" Then, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he did not recall any contradictions in Clarke's testimony.

Sen. Lugar seems to be saying that he could recall no contradiction in Clarke's testimony. Not that there was no contradiction between Clarke's testimony and any previous remarks he might have made. The distinction should be obvious to a smart guy like you, Shantinik.

It was a distinction between the testimony he gave to the Commission, and that which he gave to the Congressional Committee, exactly what you've been harping about.

As already noted, it doesn't matter in the least, since before the Committee he came representing the President, and before the Commission was under no such strictures.

Rice won't be able to argue similarly. Next week the liberals will be carping about the discrepancy in Rice's testimony and what the FBI folks tell them.

And then it will all blow over and go away and we'll go on winning hearts and minds.

No, I have only made reference to his classified testimony in connection with the efforts by Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert to have it declassified in order to determine if there was anything perjurious. What I have been "harping" about are the contradictions between his public testimony and the briefing he gave reporters in August of 2002. That same briefing in connection with which you have been "harping" about our need to understand his lying to the press (if, in fact, he was lying) at the behest of his employers. An astonishing assertion about a former public servant by a present(?) public servant to say the least.

Richard Lugar's comments seem to be of the type that would definitely fall under the "nuanced" category. He "does not recall" any inconsistencies between Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission and prior classified testimony. Not exactly unambiguous or definitive is it? Clarke could have taken some lessons from Richard Lugar before he gave that enthusiastic wet kiss of a briefing about the Bush Administration's policy on terrorism. You know, the one where you keep "harping" about his merely earning his pay from his employer.

Even as a lowly engineer who frequently is tasked with representing the interests of a client with regard to other entities, vendors, or the FCC I am well aware of the sort of "close to the vest" nuance that is required to best represent my client's point of view while, at the same time, living up to my responsibilities as a licensed professional engineer. In no way is lying (direct misrepresentation of the facts) consistent with that aim. If I am faced with the choice between lying and seeking my fortune elsewhwere I will not lie.

Clarke's inconsistencies can be construed no other way than as a direct misrepresentation of fact either now or then. Either way he has no credibility.

Perhaps not with you.

But he has enough credibility that the White House surrendered and sent Ms. Rice to testify, in public, under oath.

So far, his book parallels very well a couple of others that have come out -- including that of Mr. O'Neil and Bob Woodward's Bush at War. Over the next three months, there are additional books coming out from Administration insiders which, according to the advanced word on them, also confirm what Clarke has said.

It is going to be a rough Spring and early Summer for Mr. Bush as the truth outs.

Even NBC is saying Clarke has been severely marginalized. And darn that Bush. Why didn't he retaliate for WTC #1 and Khobar Towers and the Cole and stuff that happened during the Clinton administration? That's what those Dems asked her. They had Condi on the ropes for sure.
:rolleyes:

(Hey, didn't Clarke say Clinton couldn't act because he was parylized because of Monica?)

If NBC said it then it must be true.

Many of you are missing the point. Was Rice doing her job?. Was Bush doing his job?.

I don't think any of us are missing that point. That is just not the particular point we are discussing here.