Kerry challenges Bush to prosecute Clarke if...he lied

[JoFerret]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=1&u=/afp/us_vote_kerry_clarke

"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath, Kerry told CBS's MarketWatch.


"They have a perfect right to do that," said Kerry.

[UpInArms]

1. Bwahahahahahahahaha

ROFLMAO!

The charges prompted an aggressive response from the White House, amid apparent concerns that they could undermine the president's re-election bid in November.

Fight this in the courts????

Yeah - they're gonna do that on a cold day in hell. These are the people that own the media - they want to "try" their case with the Joe and Jane Sixpacks of the world there - where the decks are stacked and the cards are marked and the marks don't even see how gullible they are.

[54anickel]

2. This part could get interesting - I hadn't heard this before

Republicans in Congress want to declassify testimony Clarke gave before Congress in 2002 that they claim is at odds with accounts critical of the administration in the aide's recently published book.


Was he under oath before Congress in 2002? Was he just towing the line in 2002? Wonder what he said in 2002? I hope they do declassify it and make it all public.

[Florida_Geek]

4. Bob Graham has said

He does not remember any differences in what he said then and now.

Clarke, himself said, it was not until the book came out, that people asked him about Iraq.

No IMHO Clarke is too smart to get caught in a perjury trap.

[lolly]

7. Why was it classified?

If it was a national security risk, then it should stay classified.

Political damage control is NOT an acceptable reason to declassify sensitive material.

If it wasn't a risk, why was it classified in the first place?

Is anybody in the media going to ask?

[RC]

14. Political damage control is

NOT an acceptable reason to classify material either.

[fearnobush]

16. The Evil Empire of *'s has done this before....

Remember those predator drone photos of the tall guy in white, surrounded by a bunch of other guys in green from Afghanstan in 1998. Those were indeed classifed, leaked to the press, (NBC) just 2 weeks ago.

[TankLV]

17. Ouch! That hurts!

They tell lies, and it hurts us, as long as the whore media play along, which up to now, they have done in spades.

We tell the truth, and it hurts them.

By the tone of the questions lately, I really think some democrats in positions of power are visiting this site.

But I'll believe it when I see it if your questions are persued.

I won't hold my breath.

[leesa]

20. Most of this administrations "classified information" has been classified

for politico-legal reasons. The reason they refuse to release the public energy policy meeting minutes are because it would make business people less willing to engage in corrupted behavior if the public knew what they were wheeling and dealing about. Security classifications are usually BS.

[yardwork]

23. Excellent question!

What has changed since 2002 that makes it ok to declassify this information now?

Watch them use this excuse for NOT declassifying the information, once the news trickles back to Frist and Co that it wouldn't help anyway.

I can hear them now. "We could prove that Mr. Clarke is lying but we can't declassify the proof because it would endanger national security."

That would go over about as well as the White House's excuses for not having Rice testify.

[Occulus]

31. worse

they could, but won't. That's how it would be seen- as the cynical, stupendous smear it is.

May this book's publication mark the moment the first really damaging blow was landed. I'm reading Clarke's book now (I got it this morning) and, as well as being damning to the * administration, it fills in a great many blanks for me regarding events surrounding the first Gulf War. I quite highly recommend reading it.

[hang a left]

10. This was debunked today 54.

THey are blowing smoke.

[54anickel]

13. Thanks liberalnproud. Dang, I was sort of hoping they were going

to trip themselves up again.
Of course I guess they did it's been debunked. :evilgrin:

[minkyboodle]

32. could you provide a link

to either the article or du discussion I want to send it to a friend of mine. THanks.
Scott

[fearnobush]

15. "just towing the line"

Clarke, said he has done it for three Presidents. And he said that under oath, so with this in mind, any trumped up charges at Perjury cannot prove him a lier, since he has already made this claim under oath. It's not like saying, "no I did not have sexual relations with that woman." It's that black and white. Plus he could very well have his own documentation in the waiting as an insurance policy against the machines (The Bush GOP)

[radfringe]

33. big can of worms

The Hounds of Bush* are opening up a BIG can of worms in their attempt to discredit Clarke.

First if they suceed in de-classifying Clarke's testimony - what's to stop Clarke from requesting de-classification of other related testimony? If Clarke ends up being charged with perjury - then he's entitled to a defense. If Clarke "spun" his testimony in July 2002, how much else was spun by other bushies during those hearings?

Secondly, Clarke's testimony in July 2002, as he stated this past week, was presented to emphasize the positive and downplay the negative... yep - the spin machine was rotating at top speed...
The spot light will be on on much spin the bushies have put on what they did or did not do prior and after September 11. It will also raise questions as to how much spin has been used on other issues -- such as Iraq WMDs.

The bushies are hanging all of this on the fact Clarke testified under oath -- this will be the key argument for the Hounds of Bush, and they will have to spin their own arguments to explain the difference between spin and lies. It also raised the question about Condi's refusal to appear under oath. Is she hiding because if she testifies under oath that previous testimony/statements will be called into question because the "spin" won't match?

To my knowledge, the charge of perjury can only be leveled if you had testified under oath. But, what about making appearances in an official capacity? When bush* gave his SOTU charging that Iraq had WMDs - he was appearing as pResident and bound by the Oath of Office -- can he be charged with perjury? When Cheney crawled out of his undisclosed location and gave a speech or media appearance which said that Iraq was a threat because of WMDs -- can he be charged with perjury? The Hounds of Bush will say no -- oath of office is different than an oath taken in court or in hearings to tell the truth

So what does this mean? This means that you can't believe anything anyone says unless they are bound by a specific oath. That all we were told in speeches, commercials, press conferences are to be taken with a few pounds of salt -- so how are we to believe anything coming out of the government? How are we to differ from "spin" and lies? How will we know the truth when we see it?

Campaign commercials now require a specific statement by a candidate that says he/she endorses the content. Will we have to go a step further and require government officials/candidates to publicly take an oath to tell the truth before they make any sort of appearances in an official capacity?

just my opinion - but in loosing the Hounds of Bush on Clarke in an attempt to discredit him, bush* is discrediting himself and his whole administration.

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

39. What they are doing is putting out the idea that he perjured himself,

but then back down on prosecution. They know they will lose against
clarke in court, but by then the damage will be done. Fox, Rush,
Msnbc, Russert, etc. will push the perjury story to no end.

These people have no souls

[sadiesworld]

37. No, he was not under oath in 2002.

[radfringe]

40. if he wasn't under oath in 2002

then how can they charge him with perjury by comparing what he said in 2002 with what he said this week?

meanwhile - how do we determine at what point the "spin" is really a "lie"?

[sadiesworld]

43. The NYT is reporting this morning that, according to dems, Clarke

was not under oath in 2002. Other sources (cable) are saying he was. I conclude he was not, partially b/c of the dem statements, but also b/c I can't imagine that a repug congress was putting WH officials under oath.

The only perjury that could have occurred was at the recent hearing. If they had any solid evidence that he lied this past week, we would have heard about it. His testimony was largely consistent with his book and they have had the book for months.

IMHO

[joeunderdog]

42. That's a can of worms the WH doesn't really want opened.

Then their own facts come into question. They've done all they can to prevent this from happeneing. Plus, if he was on their payroll, then why didn't they object at the time?

Clarke's "good soldier" explanation is being validated by their attack on him for his current negative statements. All he has to do is say "See what happens to people who don't tote the party line? They get smeared, called liars, threatened and harrassed."

[librechik]

3. Yeah, bring it on--so we can have Condi under oath at last n/t

Otherwise they better shut up.

In fact, I think Clarke should sue them for defamation in civil court, and make them prove their charges. Again we get Condi under oath.

[stopbush]

5. The Clarke corroborators are already coming out of the woodwork.

Après Frist, le deluge!!

[Beetwasher]

6. Yup, Bring It On!

They will have to declassify a whole lot of interesting shit to make their case and Clarke will have a big opportunity to demand declassification of a whole lot of interesting shit in order to defend himself. That trial will make the OJ trial look like a failed lounge act.

[goclark]

9. Bring It ON!

[belle]

26. Also, it'd be a terrific segue into the Plame affair...

"Gee, outing top secret information for political reasons seems to be a habit with you guys, eh?"

[FauxNewsBlues]

12. Indeed, Bring it on.

Put up or shut up, you pathetic weasels.
Bring it on baby.

[billybob537]

8. Credibility chasm

And it just keeps getting bigger.

[FauxNewsBlues]

11. Chimpeachment Time

This white house is acting like they have something very embarassing to hide.

Give em hell Kerry!

[Disturbed]

18. Back to this>

"What did the President know and when did he know it?"

[Sinistrous]

19. Only thi time, it is:

What did tha president know, and when did he know he knew it.

[robbedvoter]

21. uh...bring it on? On Clarke?

As the Blazing Saddles sherrif was saying: don't do a thing or the nigger gets it." Glad Kerry is throwing Clarke to the wolves. Only Wesley Clark can say: "this man is telling the truth".
I guess that's why Clark is not really a democrat - he actually has balls.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. What the heck are you talking about???

[robbedvoter]

35. GOP is not above prosecuting without proof - Whitewater, Martha Stewart

show that since they have the judicial system they can prosecute, indict , punish whomever they want for whatever hey chose. And THEY CAN DO IT SECTETLY TOO.

[yardwork]

25. I believe you may be missing the point.

Every piece of evidence we have seen indicates that Clarke is telling the truth and that Frist and Co are bluffing. Kerry just called their bluff. He's not throwing anybody anywhere. Kerry is feeding rope to the Republicans.

[GaryL]

27. Yep

And if they would dare attempt to prosecute, the subpoenas would fly like rain drops! Shrub and company would have to shred every document and send most of their staff to the Arctic. Kerry's got plenty buddy!

[goclark]

38. I agree

To me, Wes Clark, should be the point man on all of this,not Kerry.
Love Kerry but this back and forth could get into a he said,she said for him.

[pacifictiger]

24. Clarke is ready for them

he said he knew as soon as the book came out they would set their dogs on him. You just have to contrast his calm, unblinking demeanor as he was testifying, with that of rapid eye rice and cheney to determine who is lying. Body language says a lot.

[cynicinthesouth]

28. Things are Declassified all the time

it's very standard in Washington.

[joeunderdog]

44. I thought the same thing. He was daring them to Bring It On.

I loved it when the Repuke questioning the "discrepancies" in his book and the WH briefing asked him if he knowingly lied on record for his bosses, and he told him that he "highlighted the positives and minimized the negatives...just like he did for a number of president's." The questioner looked like he just got round-housed and stuttered, "Uhhhh....o. K. ..."

Clarke WANTS more questions. He wants a chance to explain. The repukes are just bluffing and that's why Kerry is telling them to put up or shut up.

I love to see them squirm. They are being strangled in their web of lies.

[yltlatl]

29. I started Clarke's book tonight...

I think its pretty obvious that he foresaw a lot of this--it's there in the book to a certain extent, but it's also in his testimony and his "marketing" plan. After all, he must've had an idea how this game would go after 30 years in Washington. I think he's way too smart to get caught in a perjury trap. Clarke SHOULD sue them. And Kerry is playing it just right--he seems such a cagey political veteran.

P.S. I believe Commissioner Roemer specifically stated that as the only Commissioner who also heard Clarke's testimony before the joint commission, he did not feel Clarke's credibility to be damaged by his book or his public testimony.

[Judi Lynn]

34. Greata post. I'm sure you're right.

He DOES know how things work there by now, and he really doesn't seem anything but self-confident, and determined.

It's going to drive them all up the wall when they realize the more noise they make about Clark, the more copies of his book they're going to sell for him! I think that's great!

I hope for a very long, healthy, peaceful, unmurdered life for this great American.

[9215]

30. Great way to make the fascists fish or cut bait JFK.

:thumbsup:

[robbedvoter]

36. Bring it on - not acceptable when aimed at another

They will prosecute Clarke secretly on manufactured evidence. You don't provoke fascists to a democratic display. The right to a fair trial died long ago.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

41. Woo Hoo - go John Go

Ha Ha Ha