Quote:
|
"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath."
|
imagine, saying something nice about your boss in washington…
selective declassifications solely for the purpose of destroying your critics is an abuse of power and a tactic of tyrants. how about declassifying everything, even the material awkward to bush, as a matter of fact how about putting bush under oath and asking him pointed and
very specific questions? then we’ll have plenty of ammo to get at the truth, which is of course what everyone wants, including republicans, right?
today we learn that condy rice who is everywhere, in front of any camera she can find, except ones where she first has to swear an oath, had to retract statements she herself made. 2 years ago she claimed nobody had any idea air attacks against the trade center were planned. turns out the cia had a few ideas about it. she said today well, nobody told her…
she also contradicted both herself and cheney as the administration fell all over themselves attacking clarke.
she said clarke's anti terrorism plan was no good, then contradicted herself later in the week saying the plan was ok.
cheney tells limbaugh clarke didn’t know everything, he wasn't "in the loop", not so said rice - clarke had been at "every meeting."
the most damaging of all is the white house's reversal of their denial that the now infamous sept 12th clarke-bush meeting happened, when bush insisted clarke “get the goods on iraq,”
and only iraq, while the experts told bush “wait a minute, iraq had no connection to 9/11.” with witness after republican witness this week coming forward agreeing the meeting took place exactly as described by clarke, the white house today had no choice and flipped from denial to reluctant acknowlegdment, finally admitting the now infamous 9/12 meeting occured. thanks for hacking up a little peice of honesty mr. bush.
graham, who presumably knows what’s in those meetings the republicans want to declassify says declassify it
all guys, “bring it on!” as tom daschle sarcastically remarks, if they have something on clarke, try him for perjury. they don’t, and they can’t, but that shouldn’t stop the country getting at the truth – even if it means swearing in the entire white house.
- js.