The loons are at it again -- they say Clarke refused to testify before the

[CatWoman]

senate using the same argument as Rice (in 1999).

Listening to Hammity during my ride home -- the info was sent to him by the Freepers. They also sent it to NewsMax.

It's now up at Drudge:


1999: CLARKE REFUSED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!


Here's a little of it from NewsMax:

Monday, Mar. 29, 2004 05:26 PM EST
Clarke Refused to Testify in 1999 Citing Same Reasons as Condi

Former Clinton terrorism czar Richard Clarke refused to testify before the Senate Y2K Committee in 1999 citing the same rule invoked by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in recent days, with the Bush White House saying the regulation prevents her from testifying publicly before the 9/11 Commission.

In a transcript of a July 29, 1999 Senate hearing first unearthed by FreeRepublic.com, Committee Chairman Robert Bennett, R-Ut., explained that Clarke had cancelled his appearance, because, as a member of the National Security Council, he hadn't been confirmed by the Senate and as such was prohibited from testifying before Congress.

The Congressional Record confirms Clarke's decision not to appear by invoking the same rule cited by Dr. Rice.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/29/172749.shtml

[tom_paine]

1. Lie or half-truth at best

However, the Busheviks will continue repeating until it becomes "conventional wisdom".

[librechik]

2. oh well, in that case, Condi is perfectly justified in allowing Clarke's

testimony to stand as is with no on the record rebuttal from her.

It looks bad, but I guess she has no choice to let the appearance of having something to hide be the overriding perception here. Clarke's refusal to testify in the earlier, different case (if true) can be her precedent!

Too bad, she could have taken the high road here...

<snicker>

[aurore]

5. Clarke/Rice testimony

As usual the situations are not put into context. Clarke
appears to have legitimate reasons and nothing to hide in 1999
regarding Y2. I also don't recall him making the rounds of the
media.
Rice has every reason to testify publicly under oath. 9-11 is
a done deal, and she certainly hasn't been shy about saying
whatever she wants in the media.

[CatWoman]

7. excellent points, aurore

welcome to DU

:hi:

[SemperEadem]

27. yes--that is the glaring difference in the two cases

and any Dems who go on these talking head shows need to hammer this distinction home, over and over again.

Con Rice would have been far more credible if she didn't attempt to pimp the spin of this by going on every talk show on air. Someone in the Bushevik admin should have pulled her coattail and tell her to sit tight and shut up. Rice, herself, should have held it taciturnity and then exercised her "priviledge", if it is that, to not testify in public, under oath.

[newyawker99]

28. Hi aurore!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[radwriter0555]

3. ROFLMAO! Look at what clarke was SUPPOSED TO TESTIFY ON!!!

9:30 a.m., 192 Dirksen The Senate Special Committee on Year 2000 will conduct an open hearing on Y2K information center and how the lessons learned will apply to the broader challenges of critical infrastructure protection.

Witnesses include Richard Clarke, National Coordinator, Infrastructure Protection, National Security Council; John Koskinen, Chairman, The President's Year 2000 Conversion Council; John S. Tritak, Director, the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office; Michael Vatis, Director, National Infrastructure Protection Center; and Richard Schaeffer, Director, Infrastructure and Information Assurance.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul1999/a07291999_as990729.html

OH THE HORROR! THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!

[radwriter0555]

4. i do LOVE making fools of the freepers and their moonie newsmax...

I have to thank them sometimes.

[bluedog]

11. let me get this right

he refused to testify......the 2000 plans were in the works to be detered..........so he was suppose to put their plans on the table to the world and let them know what we were going to do? Is that how this is spun?

[SOS]

13. Did not refuse to testify...

Snipped from the record:

The congressional record; Senator Bennett (R-UT):

"I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke.
He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt...it would be an inconvenience....

So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time.
We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here..."

This doesn't sound comparable to Condi in the least. But we see the Repub slime machine is digging deep.

[radwriter0555]

16. a republican senator clears Mr. Clarke. Thank you

for this.

[rumguy]

19. great catch - "no improper motive" - bottom line it wasn't a big deal

However, 9/11 is a big deal and the whole fucking world, except brainless brownshirt Bushbots, knows it.

[radwriter0555]

14. No spinning needed, and it appears that he didn't refuse anything.

It appears that the WH decided it was in everyone's best interest not to reveal secret preparations to public record.

[Vickers]

6. Has she been confirmed as NSA?

Oh she has? Then she can testify.

Is this testimaony before Congress? Oh it's not? Then she can testify.

"The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress."

NEXT!




edit: dang bad spelling sumbish!

[CityDem]

10. NSA' s are not confirmed

President picks his staff (NSA, White House Council, etc.). Only the members of the cabinent (sub-levels) are approved by congress.

[Vickers]

12. Even better!

Then she can't use that as a precedent for not talking to the Commission!

:toast:

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. Condi is not being asked to testify to Congress

She is being asked to testify to the Independent 911 Commission about the worst terrorist attack in American history that occured on her watch. Also Condi is not just the head of the NSA, she is also one of W's closet advisors. She has also been one of the most public heads of the NSA, speaking for the President on a regular basis in every major public forum.

If she has such a problem with testifying under oath, then maybe she should cut back on her TV appearances and focus on doing her job more. Maybe then another 911 won't happen on her watch.

[sangh0]

26. It doesn't matter

The Independent Commission gets it's authority from Congress, so the argument is that it has no authority over Rice because the Legislative branch has no authority over the Executive.

[RamboLiberal]

8. The Lawyers at the WH refused to let him testify

that's the story that's on Drudge much as I hate to cite him.

[Blue-Jay]

9. Hannity is STILL saying that Clarke was demoted.

Even after his guest Condi Rice refuted that assertation on his own goddamn show! Still, he spouts that crap daily. So does El Gasbag, for that matter.

[CatWoman]

15. also still saying that Bin Laden was handed to Clinton on a silver platter

:eyes:

he's adamant about that.

[Rationality]

17. Kick

Thank you for showing everyone just how the right-wing media works.

I was gonna post this on a second thread until CatWoman alerted me on this, but lemme put it here even though I'm probably repeating:

__________________________________
Sorry for posting such trash links, but I thought I should share this because I want everyone here to know how the propaganda sites work.

A poster on the Free Republic just made a story without any sources on Clarke, blasting him for allegedly denying public testimony in 1999. here is the original article on the Free Republic

Now, a few hours later, Matt Drudge picks it up and posts it on his site. Notice you get no attribution to the Free Republic here. It seems as if Matt Drudge did this himself, so that some typical reader can look over and think this came from some "credible" (for Drudge, calling him credible is a stretch, I for arguement's sake) news source rather than the Free Republicans.

From Drudge, you can guess what happens, but there it is.

[kaitykaity]

18. Kickity.

:kick:

[Killarney]

20. agh

is there any proof this freeper didn't just make it up?

[Killarney]

21. RW media outlets are picking this up...

Hannity talked about it.

Newsmax and WorldNetDaily both ran stories on it... but claimed freerepublic as the original source.

Yet, I have not seen any proof that this freeper didn't just make it up!

[Rationality]

25. rightcoast claims to have picked it up from Lexus Nexus

You have to pay to access that site though, so I can't disprove or confirm it.

What bothers me though is that rightcoast is not really the freerepublic, yet these sites have decided to credit the freerepublic for doing this. That's like saying Jim Robinson personally leaked the info.

Equally disturbing: neither Hannity, Savage, WorldNetDaily, Drudge, NewsMax nor any of these other talking heads know who rightcoast is. As far as we know, it could be Ed Gullipsie!

But as I just said earlier, keep an eye on this story. This is the right-wing propaganda factory in full operation.

[leftchick]

22. good lord.... the wingnut host on c-span READ THIS

this morning citing drudge as it's source. :crazy:

[Quahog]

24. A much better argument would be:

"Jesus Christ refused to testify before Pontius Pilate, so why should Condi have to testify?"

That would bring it all back to God, which usually makes them very happy.

The funny thing is, they can keep coming up with excuses for her not to testify, and every day that this goes on, the more interesting it becomes to the AvAm simply through repetition. Most sheeple don't really "hear" a story until it's been blasted at them ten or twelve times, at which point it starts to penetrate the American Idol-induced stupor. Condi's handlers at bushCo are MAKING this into news. AvAms have forgotten what Powell said last week, and they would have forgotten what Rice said too, if she had just calmly taken her turn in front of the committee.

But now, her stubborn refusal is becoming a story, a story that gets repeated every night on TV. Pretty soon some of the sheeple are going to start wondering who this Condoleeza Rice is, and what it is she has to hide.

Or not, depends a lot on whether the next "surprise twist" on Survivor is a good one.

</cynicism>

[samsingh]

29. don't know if this is true or not, but 911 changed everything.