[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is certainly a political aspect to it. That shoudn't surprise any adult here. The whole thing is political. The White House perceives the 911 Commission to be a political dog and pony show run by their political opponents who are seeking to use this for their advantage in an election year. They aren't going to play by those rules. They are going to negotiate more favorable rules. Or, as they would probably see it, rules that are more neutral.

I expect that Rice will testify just like Powell did. But they will make sure that the Commission shows the proper respect owed a coequal branch of the government. That might mean, for example, that she would not testify under oath, and would reserve the president's right not to answer questions that the president (and any president, note) would regard as being privileged advice given the president by someone who is exclusively one of his advisors.

right. So as I surmise, the whole thing is to keep her from swearing what she says is true, or keep her from having to answer questions that would be embarrassing to the administration politically in an election year.

Now why would that be?

[gadster]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
the chilling effect

You mean advisors would be legally responsible for their advice? How would that be a bad thing?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
right. So as I surmise, the whole thing is to keep her from swearing what she says is true, or keep her from having to answer questions that would be embarrassing to the administration politically in an election year.

Now why would that be?

Because they are not stupid or naive.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Because they are not stupid or naive.

....or honest.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by gadster:
You mean advisors would be legally responsible for their advice? How would that be a bad thing?

Yes.

Again, it's because of the structure of the US government. This isn't a Parliamentary structure like your country. We have a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, each of which are coequal. The legislature can't start indicting the executive, or tell it who it should hire or fire and certainly not start telling it what is and is not good advice. Those would be an invasion by the legislature into powers that the Constitution gives to the Executive.

The exception is impeachment. But that's not applicable to this situation.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The exception is impeachment. But that's not applicable to this situation.

ahhhh...but increasingly in the minds of many perhaps it should be.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Because they are not stupid or naive.

but why would it be stupid or naive to allow her to swear what she says is true?

She's making accusationst that what Clarke says is untrue...so its a valid area that she has brought up herself. If Clarke will say what he knows under oath, and she calls him a liar but refuses to be under oath........conclusions will be drawn.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ahhhh...but increasingly in the minds of many perhaps it should be.

Not applicable because I don't believe that Presidential Advisors can be removed by impeachment. I don't believe that a presidential advisor would be considered a "civil Officer of the United States." Presidential advisors are basically the president's personal staff.

However, I don't know of any case law one way or the other that is directly on point. It's kind of irrelevant anyway since there is no chance whatsoever of an impeachment, nor any need. There have been only 2 presidential impeachments, and they were both grossly political. This would be no different. If you want to remove the president, you will have to do it the proper way -- by persuading a majority not to reelect him.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
conclusions will be drawn.

Like your conclusions were ever in doubt.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Not applicable because I don't believe that Presidential Advisors can be removed by impeachment. I don't believe that a presidential advisor would be considered a "civil Officer of the United States." Presidential advisors are basically the president's personal staff.

sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant impeaching Bush.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Like your conclusions were ever in doubt.

MY own personal conclusions are not the ones they should be worried about. I'm speaking of voters in general.

but thanks for making it pointlessly personal, once again.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
MY own personal conclusions are not the ones they should be worried about. I'm speaking of voters in general.

Right. This is all a political game between two powerful sides using all the weapons at their disposal. So stop pretending that one side is playing politics while the other isn't.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Like your conclusions were ever in doubt.

Oh ouch, cheap shot there!

Really now, if she doesn't testify at this point, it makes her look bad, and by extension, the rest of the administration looks bad.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Right. This is all a political game between two powerful sides using all the weapons at their disposal. So stop pretending that one side is playing politics while the other isn't.

Have I done that? where?

again, making it pointlessly personal once again.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Oh ouch, cheap shot there!

Really now, if she doesn't testify at this point, it makes her look bad, and by extension, the rest of the administration looks bad.

Did you bother reading my posts? There are two elements here. One is party political and short term for political gain. Both sides are playing that game. The other is the inbuilt tensions implicit in a government with separated powers. Both sides are playing that game too. There are legitimate constitutional concerns there. It's not all political.

You see this exclusively through the political lens. I'm telling you there is more there.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Have I done that? where?

again, making it pointlessly personal once again.

Lerk, you see any disagreement as personal. You really are the most thin skinned little being.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Lerk, you see any disagreement as personal. You really are the most thin skinned little being.

Um. no. we were doing just fine disagreeing and discussing the topic.
I have no problem with disagreement.

but thanks once again for making it personal.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Um. no. we were doing just fine disagreeing and discussing the topic.
I have no problem with disagreement.

but thanks once again for making it personal.

"There you go again."

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Lerk, you see any disagreement as personal. You really are the most thin skinned little being.

Actually, he starts those claims when he realizes that his arguments have no merit. Pretty soon he will report you for your so called personal attacks.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
that's a mighty conveeeeeenient "principle". What is the legality of it?
It certainly has not prevented her from appearing on every talking head show imaginable to counter what Clarke says......so she IS allowed to discuss it publicly, just not under oath....riiiiiight?

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf

The relationship between a President and his/her advisor could be considered privileged and constitutionally protectable in much the same way a client/lawyer relationship is. Remember, a presidential advisor is a civilian executive branch official, not a member of the traditional Cabinet. There have been past instances where an advisor to a president has given testimony before committee, and there have been instances where it's been refused. The thing is though, she HAS met with the 9/11 commission.

As for her discussing the matter on TV or whatever, yeah, she's probably pissed because she testified weeks before Clarke's book hubbub, and now she's got plenty of ammo. Also, I'm pretty sure what she discusses with Tim Russert is of less detail than what she already discussed and could potentially still discuss with the 9/11 commission.

[Lerkfish]

BOT:

Rice calls reporters to her office to rebut Clarke

of note in the story:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that administration records -- including former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's own words and actions -- prove false his "scurrilous allegation that somehow the president of the United States was not attentive to the terrorist threat."

Forcefully rebutting Clarke's testimony Wednesday to the 9/11 commission, Rice called reporters to her West Wing office and said that on July 5, 2001 -- two months before the terrorist attacks -- she personally ordered Clarke to alert domestic agencies that they needed to be on alert for the possibility of a terror strike.

Rice said she called reporters to her office after Clarke's testimony on Wednesday because "the American people need to have an answer to the scurrilous allegation that somehow the president of the United States was not attentive to the terrorist threat."

Rice also responded angrily to Clarke's characterization in his book, that, when he first briefed Rice on al Qaeda, she appeared to him to be unfamiliar with the terrorist network.

"Arrogance at its extreme," she said of that suggestion. "I'd heard of a few things before I met Dick Clarke."

again, my point is she is definitely accusing Clarke of being untruthful and even throwing in a little character assasination while she's at it, availing herself of public access but not putting herself under oath. Its not like this "principle" is preventing her from rebutting other's sworn testimony with her own unsworn testimony in the public arena.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Actually, he starts those claims when he realizes that his arguments have no merit. Pretty soon he will report you for your so called personal attacks.

ok, I'll bite: why do my arguments lack merit in this instance?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
again, my point is she is definitely accusing Clarke of being untruthful and even throwing in a little character assasination while she's at it, availing herself of public access but not putting herself under oath. Its not like this "principle" is preventing her from rebutting other's sworn testimony with her own unsworn testimony in the public arena.

No of course not. The constitutional principles aren't at issue when she discusses the matter with journalists. They can't issue a subpoena, they can't put her under oath, they can't threaten her with criminal prosecution, and (much as the media likes to pretend otherwise) the press isn't a branch of the government improperly asserting authority over another coequal branch.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


again, my point is she is definitely accusing Clarke of being untruthful and even throwing in a little character assasination while she's at it, availing herself of public access but not putting herself under oath. Its not like this "principle" is preventing her from rebutting other's sworn testimony with her own unsworn testimony in the public arena.

Well, she is learning well from her superiors at any rate.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No of course not. The constitutional principles aren't at issue when she discusses the matter with journalists. They can't issue a subpoena, they can't put her under oath, they can't threaten her with criminal prosecution, and (much as the media likes to pretend otherwise) the press isn't a branch of the government improperly asserting authority over another coequal branch.

Right. I don't think we're in disagreement on that.

My point, though, is that she's SEEKING that press access specifically to accuse someone else of lying under oath but won't go under oath herself.

so, she's protecting herself, but going full guns towards someone else.....

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Right. I don't think we're in disagreement on that.

My point, though, is that she's SEEKING that press access specifically to accuse someone else of lying under oath but won't go under oath herself.

so, she's protecting herself, but going full guns towards someone else.....

Taking your quotes above at face value, that isn't what she did. Your quotes said he lied in his book (which isn't under oath), and made "scurrilous allegation[s]" while under oath. Scurrilous allegations aren't lies. It's not perjury to make an allegation, even one that the person accused finds scurrilous. An allegation is really just an expression of opinion.

What you seem to see as Rice attacking Clarke is equally Rice defending herself and her office. Are you seriously suggesting that Clarke can go on 60 minutes etc and make claims to journalists to promote his book, but that she can't respond? Don't you think you are being just a little one-sided there?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Taking your quotes above at face value, that isn't what she did. Your quotes said he lied in his book (which isn't under oath), and made "scurrilous allegation[s]" while under oath. Scurrilous allegations aren't lies. It's not perjury to make an allegation, even one that the person accused finds scurrilous. An allegation is really just an expression of opinion.

What you seem to see as Rice attacking Clarke is equally Rice defending herself and her office. Are you seriously suggesting that Clarke can go on 60 minutes etc and make claims to journalists to promote his book, but that she can't respond? Don't you think you are being just a little one-sided there?

There you go making it personal again!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Taking your quotes above at face value, that isn't what she did. Your quotes said he lied in his book (which isn't under oath), and made "scurrilous allegation[s]" while under oath. Scurrilous allegations aren't lies. It's not perjury to make an allegation, even one that the person accused finds scurrilous. An allegation is really just an expression of opinion.

What you seem to see as Rice attacking Clarke is equally Rice defending herself and her office. Are you seriously suggesting that Clarke can go on 60 minutes etc and make claims to journalists to promote his book, but that she can't respond? Don't you think you are being just a little one-sided there?

errr..no. I think she SHOULD defend herself...under oath. If she's telling the truth, that will come out.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


What you seem to see as Rice attacking Clarke is equally Rice defending herself and her office. Are you seriously suggesting that Clarke can go on 60 minutes etc and make claims to journalists to promote his book, but that she can't respond? Don't you think you are being just a little one-sided there?

Um thats not what Lerk was saying at all.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
errr..no. I think she SHOULD defend herself...under oath. If she's telling the truth, that will come out.

Except that Congress has no business putting presidential advisors under oath, as discussed above.

[daimoni]

.

[dialo]

Anyone who has ever been young -- which, I suppose, includes everyone -- remembers some shameless whippersnapper who had an older brother, or older sister, or some other sort of protector. And from under the wing or shadow of that protector they'd hurl all manner of taunts and insults and boasts at all the other little kids, confident that none of them could fight back or do anything about it.

Which brings us to Condoleeza Rice.

Here's Richard Clarke, at the center of the storm, up there on Capitol Hill getting grilled over his story. And from the peanut gallery, there's Condi Rice, heading over to the microphones at the White House every chance she gets to attack Clarke when no one can ask her any serious follow ups.

A couple hours after Clarke testified Rice headed over to the mikes and called his charges "scurrilous."

"This story has so many twists and turns, he needs to get his story straight," she said.

Rice truly has the best of all worlds. She hangs back at the White House shooting spit balls at Clarke and the rest of them. But she doesn't have to back anything up because she doesn't have to testify under oath or get questioned.

Needless to say, Rice rather undermines her arguments about the constitutional importance of maintaining the privacy of her advice to the president since she's sharing all sorts of information on the Post op-ed page and more or less every TV show in the universe.

When she went down to the White House press room to make the statements above, she also read from a previously classifed email Clarke had written to her just after 9/11. Needless to say, it was declassifed so she could try to use it to damage Clarke. Or to put it another way, it was declassified for narrowly political purposes -- taking advantage of the fact that the NSC, which Rice runs, is in charge of that process of declassification.

Evidently there are very few classes of confidential information Rice is not willing to publicize. She just doesn't want to get questioned.

Now, perhaps you'll say, following the White House line, that she'd love to testify but a constitutional principle is at stake and she has, as she puts it, a "responsibility to maintain what is a longstanding separation -- constitutional separation between the executive and the legislative branch."

Now, there is a constitutional issue involved. But Rice is trying to get people to think that members of the White House staff never testify. And that's not even close to true. In my hand I have a 2002 Congressional Research Service study that lists a whole slew of presidential aides and advisors who've testified in the past.

Indeed, it lists two of Rice's predecessors as National Security Advisor who've given public testimony: Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1980 and Sandy Berger in 1997.

Interestingly, the CRS study lists five examples of cases where presidential aides refused to testify. It's not clear whether this list is supposed to be exhaustive. And in most cases presidential aides are simply not even asked to testify at all, for reasons of comity between the branches if nothing else. But of the five listed four are from the Nixon administration. And each of those were before the Watergate investigation really got under way. A whole slew of Nixon aides had to head up to the Hill in 1974 after things started to go south for them -- so perhaps we haven't heard the final word on this matter.

In any case, there's a high bar for testimony from a National Security Advisor. But it's happened before. And more than once. If they wanted her to testify, she could testify. What they want is for her to be able to lacerate her critics, discuss whichever parts of her advice to the president would be helpful to her politically at the moment, and freely declassify documents which she or the White House believes will hurt her enemies.

She's a veritable information geyser, a one-woman-FOIA. She just won't answer questions under oath.
-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._21.php#002762

[dialo]

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Clarke is lying or trying to sell a book as he seeks revenge on Bush's administration.

Yesterday's transcript:

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?

CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...

THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.

CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.

THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?

CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.

THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.

CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.

THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)

THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dialo:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._21.php#002762

right, this was my earlier point -- this course of action is going to lead to certain conclusions, my own personal viewpoint aside.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Lerk, you see any disagreement as personal. You really are the most thin skinned little being.

Just wanted to clarify a misconception. I'm not little.

6'4", 280+ lbs.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by dialo:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._21.php#002762 Needless to say, Rice rather undermines her arguments about the constitutional importance of maintaining the privacy of her advice to the president since she's sharing all sorts of information on the Post op-ed page and more or less every TV show in the universe.

When she went down to the White House press room to make the statements above, she also read from a previously classifed email Clarke had written to her just after 9/11. Needless to say, it was declassifed so she could try to use it to damage Clarke. Or to put it another way, it was declassified for narrowly political purposes -- taking advantage of the fact that the NSC, which Rice runs, is in charge of that process of declassification.

Game, set and match.

So much for principle.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No of course not. The constitutional principles aren't at issue when she discusses the matter with journalists. They can't issue a subpoena, they can't put her under oath, they can't threaten her with criminal prosecution, and (much as the media likes to pretend otherwise) the press isn't a branch of the government improperly asserting authority over another coequal branch.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Except that Congress has no business putting presidential advisors under oath, as discussed above.

And yet she DID testify before the Commission, just not in the public forum segment. Was she NOT under oath then?

I guess I'm having trouble seeing how the principle of not answering to Congress is compromised by re-stating her answers in a public forum when she already has done so in private. Wasn't that line crossed when she testified in private?

An honest question here. I really don't know the legal positioning.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by dialo:
Yesterday's transcript:

THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.

Scumbag. "I'm just a simple God-fearin' Midwestern guy; I don't understand all these 'politics'." Easier than admitting you just had your ass handed to you, I suppose. What an embarrassment to Illinois.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Just wanted to clarify a misconception. I'm not little.

6'4", 280+ lbs.

ack!

5'8", 140 lbs


*hello, Mr 'Fish, sir*

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by dialo:
Yesterday's transcript:

CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.

Red herring - nobody's expecting that of him. Clarke's problem is with the facts that he presented in the August 2002 press briefing. They are completely at odds with the facts he presents today. Either he was lying then or he's lying today. Of course, today he has a book to sell.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
And yet she DID testify before the Commission, just not in the public forum segment. Was she NOT under oath then?

I guess I'm having trouble seeing how the principle of not answering to Congress is compromised by re-stating her answers in a public forum when she already has done so in private. Wasn't that line crossed when she testified in private?

An honest question here. I really don't know the legal positioning.

I think the answer is no, she wasn't under oath. I vaguely recall reading that somewhere. But I'm not sure.

As for the principled part of the matter (which is parallel to the unmistakable political aspect) yes, there is a difference between discussing the matter in public and submitting to subpoena and being put under oath as a witness. When you do that, you are admitting the right of the body to subpoena and put you under oath. Look at this away from the politics for a second and think of it solely from the point of view of whether the temporary custodians of one branch of the government (the Executive) can afford to let the temporary custodians of another branch (the Legislature) create that precedent. The answer, quite apart from temporary politics, is no. That's why all presidents since Washington have asserted their executive privilege. And equally, why every Congress has pushed back.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Red herring - nobody's expecting that of him. Clarke's problem is with the facts that he presented in the August 2002 press briefing. They are completely at odds with the facts he presents today. Either he was lying then or he's lying today. Of course, today he has a book to sell.

And of course, back then he was working at the behest of an administration specifically asking him to rebut public criticism�and not under oath.

But of course, no one who's written a book can possibly be telling the truth.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by Nicko:
True enough.
Then again, she always has the option of resigning and then writing a whisle-blower-here-is-what-really-happened' book.

And if she did, all the conservatives would dig up every comment she ever made that contradicts the claims she makes in the book as a means of discrediting her every word.

I ask a question of all you conservatives out here who are getting off on these old Clark quotations: do you think you've never contradicted what you now believe? Have you never thought one thing, and then upon reflection, thought differently? Have you lived your lives with a constant, unwavering viewpoint that could never be refuted by using your own language?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think no. But I'm not sure.

I'm sorry - 'No'- as in she wasn't under oath?

If not, that brings up a number of interesting questions. How common is it to appear before a Commission and not be sworn under oath to tell the truth? Or is that something we only see in the public forum?

Does that send an implicit message that the truth doesn't need to be told? Can you give false answers? Or is it for an escape clause, much like pleading the 5th?

[dialo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Red herring - nobody's expecting that of him. Clarke's problem is with the facts that he presented in the August 2002 press briefing. They are completely at odds with the facts he presents today. Either he was lying then or he's lying today. Of course, today he has a book to sell.

Except that we know what Clarke is saying is the truth because it's corroborated by:

Beers, who Bush appointed to Clarke's position from mid 2002 until ~March 2003 (he resigned at the beginning of the war)

Bush's former cabinet secretary.

Hart and Rudman
http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html

A list of other individuals from the DOD and State

And Foster

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Scumbag. "I'm just a simple God-fearin' Midwestern guy; I don't understand all these 'politics'." Easier than admitting you just had your ass handed to you, I suppose. What an embarrassment to Illinois.

Thompson's the scumbag? Did you read that press briefing? Is there ANY way one could divine what Clarke is saying today from what he said in 2002? This has nothing to do with "shading" or "tone".

[dialo]

You know that what Clarke is saying here is likely to be absolutely true:

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?

CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...

THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.

CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.

THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?

CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.

THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.

CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.

THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)

THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there.

I am very hesistant to trust any politician or government official, but anyone with even a remote amount of sense realizes that it is next to impossible to discount his statements right now.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Thompson's the scumbag? Did you read that press briefing? Is there ANY way one could divine what Clarke is saying today from what he said in 2002? This has nothing to do with "shading" or "tone".

good point.

Which of Clarke's comments has more merit:

A) The comments he made while recieving a paycheck for his job duties.

B) The comments he made while recieving royalties from the sale of his book.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Which of Clarke's comments has more merit:

Why look at just clarke? Afterall, we have have TWO of Bush's chief counter-terrorism advisors saying the same things.

And as I posted:

Originally posted by dialo:
Except that we know what Clarke is saying is the truth because it's corroborated by:

Beers, who Bush appointed to Clarke's position from mid 2002 until ~March 2003 (he resigned at the beginning of the war)

Bush's former [treasury] secretary.

Hart and Rudman
http://dir.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html

A list of other individuals from the DOD and State

And Foster

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I'm sorry - 'No'- as in she wasn't under oath?

If not, that brings up a number of interesting questions. How common is it to appear before a Commission and not be sworn under oath to tell the truth? Or is that something we only see in the public forum?

Does that send an implicit message that the truth doesn't need to be told? Can you give false answers? Or is it for an escape clause, much like pleading the 5th?

Remember, executive privilege really isn't the employee's to raise. It's the president's privilege. If a presidential advisor is placed under oath and told to discuss the inner workings of the president's office under threat of criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress, that is the functional equivilent of Congress forcing the president to waive his constitutional right to the exercise of his office. That's not Congress' right to do. It isn't analogous to testimony in court where the court has the right to put witnesses under oath. This is a situation where the Congress is asserting a right and a power that it probably doesn't have under the Constitution.

Now, what could happen is that the president could agree to allow one of his representatives (his assistant) testify, but only on condition that the testimony not be under oath. My guess is that what happened, and may well happen again.