Rice accuses Clarke of conflicting stories

[JoFerret]

Let battle commence:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4651696§ion=newsWASHINGTON (Reuters) -

A fuming U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice accused former counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke on Wednesday of shifting positions from backing President Bush's war on terrorism to now questioning it.

Clarke has accused Bush of a fixation on Iraq, but Rice said Clarke did not raise those concerns with her. She said after his resignation 13 months ago, she invited him to lunch three weeks before the start of the U.S.-led war against Iraq to thank him for his years of service.

Clarke had "not a word about concerns that Iraq was going to somehow take us off the path of the war on terrorism. It would've been easy to do, kick the others out, close the door, say 'I just want you to know I think you're making a mistake.' He didn't do it," she told reporters in her West Wing office.

<snip>

"There's two very different pictures here, and the fact of the matter is these stories can't be reconciled," Rice said. "Either we were ignoring the threat, or now it's changed that it was important but not urgent, or we were actually responding to the things that he actually suggested, which is what he said in the August 2002 interview."

<more>

[arcane1]

1. hey Rice! Clear it all up UNDER OATH!!!

dammit!!!!!!

[JeremyTrevor]

5. She did I think

for 4 hours in a closed door session. I saw the commissioners talking about that.

[bagnana]

8. right, closed door.

She can come out of the closet and fight when no one gets to talk back, but sends a stooge in her place to the real interview. What a sniping coward.

[pinto]

9. Condi's using a statement made by Clarke while an employee

of the Bushco admin, which he says, was intentionally meant to accent positive aspects of the admin, as he was directed, and as is "customary" for administration employees. What Condi is doing is using his responsibility to his employer (Bush) as a toll against him now that he is out of office and speaking his own mind.

And, as an aside, Condi ought to speak in public if she wants to say something to the American public, as she mentioned today, instead of using Fox, CNN, etc as spokespersons. And I mean in public, before the commission. It is an independent body, not a government agency. There is no seperation of powers argument in play.

[yltlatl]

17. You are SOOOOO Right

She's perfectly happy to talk to our feckless "news" media, who will give her a pass on any old pile of dog doo she cares to crap out, but can't face the American people who will actually hold her responsible for her evil ways.

I really need someone to explain that whole "separation of powers" argument (well, I use "argument" loosely) to me. It's not like it's the Supreme Court writing a law or anything (gee, they didn't see the selection of * as a separation of powers issue).

P.S. I hope you all heard how the commission gratuitously pointed out that Sandy Berger testified before congressional committees when he was in office, and so did Zbigniew Byrzinski when he was National Security Advisor to Carter. I forget which commissioner it was (Roemer?) but he ended by saying "not to denigrate those commissions, but this is way more important."

[Ravy]

65. Tweety swatted a Clarke critic last night.

He said that Clarke was accentuating the positives and downplaying the negatives when he was an employee. Then he asked the guest, "Isn't that what you are doing right now?"

[ThatPoetGuy]

20. I don't think so

I've been following this very closely, and what you say contradicts _every_ article in _every_ news medium I've seen, mainstream, left- and right-wing media alike.

If you can find a legitimate source corroborating this statement, I'd be happy to see it and make a retraction; otherwise, it sounds like more right-wing disinformation to me.

[htuttle]

21. I think you misunderstood

She was interviewed by committee staffers in a private session. She was not under oath.

She needs to testify publicly under oath like Clarke if she wants to play the 'he said, she said' game.

[Pax Argent]

33. It wasn't under oath and it wasn't in a public venue

She's absolutely running scared here. The fact that she's running around doing interviews and not speaking to the nation UNDER OATH shows that she's hiding something.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

Correct on all counts.

[lebkuchen]

47. Refusing to testify under oath was glaring omission on her part to Brokaw

"Executive privilege" is like taking the 5th in my book.

[PaDUer]

35. Closed door session...

she should be in public..Or do they want to keep tabs on her so she doesn't break like they did KKHarris.

[murielm99]

42. It was not under oath.

[Kool Kitty]

50. Not under oath.

She has not and will not testify under oath. That's one of the main sticking points. She did meet with the commission, some of the members, but would not testify under oath.

[rooboy]

2. Condi's swinging punches whilst cowering in a corner...

what a joke.

[Spazito]

3. No testimony under oath equal no credibility!

She just looks worse with her continual responses without testifying under oath and in public. The WH just doesn't get it, they are in a panic mode and making BIG mistakes! Gotta love it!

[0007]

23. Oh, how I love it, especially when she sez she knows

how to manage employees - she's a tough one all right! Maybe she can borrow Mike Tyson's jump rope and floss her teeth?

[LiberalFighter]

63. Jump rope tooooooo small

[Zookeeper]

4. She has a lot of nerve.

Perhaps she should testify, as she was called to do repeatedly by the commission members!

[stopbush]

6. Pot, kettle...

[Elidor]

7. Her charges are pretty thin

She points out that Clarke was actually doing something about al Qaeda. Yeah, Condi, that was his job. Too bad nobody else in the administration gave a damn. This is the best she can do? She looks more ridiculous every day.

[BOSSHOG]

10. Yo bitch, raise your right hand and look into the camera

just because you got trapped in bush's evil web doesn't mean you don't owe your bosses (us taxpayers) an explanation. Write your memoirs from a jail cell.

[amber dog democrat]

11. Of course she is going to lie.

There is not anything Condisleeza can do but brazen it out. Eventually something is going to backfire in a big way. I can only hope things will continue to unravel.
Who believes her anyway?

[BigBigBear]

12. Let's see

Clarke says he raised his concerns in 2001, asked for a mtg with the president, got blown off, and no Rice says he should should have spoken up after he left office.

I no longer want her to resign. I want her to just keep this up. She is making a joke of herself and this administration.

I miss the days when grownups were in charge.

[pippin]

13. COME OUT AND TESTIFY PUBLICLY CONDI

You chicken shit!

[diamond14]

14. "I'm prepared to spend longer with them, any where they want, any time.."

"In February she spent four hours privately with the commission and said she would be available to answer more questions. "I'm prepared to spend longer with them, any where they want, any time they want, answer as many questions as they have," she said."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4651696&pageNumber=1
(Reuters) - same link as above






yes, these bushies just LIE right out in the open.....but this lie will not sit well with WE THE PEOPLE.....

[LiberalFighter]

15. Fuming? Why did it take so long?

From Sunday until Wednesday?

Must had taken that long to figure out an angle. But what can we expect from a sleaze like her and the rest of the gang? Definitely, not honesty. Definitely, not integrity.

[ConcernedCanuk]

16. Condi Rice - -

.
.
.

Today

Tomorrow

[bacchant]

18. Sweet!

Could you make another one where the "after" picture has the whole cabinet swinging from the gallows?

[west hollywood dem]

22. Why didn't she testify under oath at the 9-11 hearing.

If I wanted to prove my point I would have testified under oath as Clarke did in such an excellent fashion. Condi, sent a fat, bloated, republican has been to testify in her stead.

She is a lying piece of garbage and as a black woman I am embarrassed that she exists.

[PaDUer]

36. They sent the fat blimp

to run the clocks and get nowhere..They should've had him leave because he was there for comedy hour..

[JoFerret]

19. Probers summon Rice

http://www.thehill.com/news/032404/rice.aspx

[leftchick]

54. unless they have something to hide....

<Albright said that to prevent future terrorist attacks and to find out as much as possible about events leading up to Sept. 11 “everyone who has served in a position of responsibility or who has information or knowledge related to this commission’s mandate should cooperate with it fully and without conditions.”>

.... they are making it very obvious now that they have something to hide!

[TheFarseer]

24. Condi has ZERO credibility

I hope everyone realizes she's just saying whatever they tell her to say and that none of her own opinions(if she has any) could possibly ever reach the surface. I think they give her three things to say and no matter what the question is she recites them in rotation.

[PaDUer]

37. Her family must be

embarrassed..Just think when she's in jail..

[cdeca]

25. I had to have a drink....

..or ten after Tom Brokaw on the NBC news gave her 10 minutes to spew her vomitis rhetoric.

From here on out I say her official name is the one that I and my husband have been calling her since the beginning. Any women who are easily offended please ignore....her name now starts with "C" and rhymes with "shunt", middle part is "duh" and the last part is "liar".

[tallyho]

26. Who is telling the truth here?

I'm getting really confused.

[htuttle]

27. Who was willing to testify under oath?

And who was not?

Seems clear to me.

[Ganja Ninja]

58. Good Point!

and something the media bootlickers don't seem to notice.

[amber dog democrat]

28. No one in the Bush Admin

appears to be capable of telling the truth.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robbien]

34. Nice snide comment there

Not everyone here likes Clinton, and some Republicans are admired.

We listen to the truth unlike Bush&Co followers.

[daleo]

38. I thought the question of truth telling was between Clarke and Rice

Nobody mentioned Clinton. Since Clarke testified publicly and under oath, Rice should do the same. That wouldn't settle the truth issue in and of itself, but it would show that she was prepared to back up her assertions, and has no worries about perjury charges while doing so.

[Pax Argent]

39. No, as Mr. Clarke is currently showing us

and as Mr. O'Neil has shown us, there are some decent, honest Republicans in Government just like there are decent, honest Democrats.

The operative problem is that we don't have any of those kind of Republicans in the Bush Administration. We currently have the Straussian-if-I-have-the-corporate-Pravda-media-behind-me-lying-for-me-I-can-get-away-with-anything kind of neocon Republicans right now. Look at the smear campaign for Clarke. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will. These people are just wrong for America.

I look forward to having a Dem president again for many reasons, but chief among these is that when one party controls everything, everything is out of control. Take a look at the budget, the national debt, the lies to get us to Iraq, the job situation, and any of a number of other things. One party rule, backed by the corporations, is not Democracy, its fascism.

Happily the lies have grown so big at this point that even the corporate spin whores can't hold back the tide anymore. The reckoning is coming. Stick around for the fun......

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Well, the only thing that Clinton was ever proven to have lied about was..

...the Lewinsky situation. If you have anything else, cough it up.

Where do you want me to start with the lies told by Junior, and when do you want me to stop?

[amber dog democrat]

55. Word

Could not say it better myself.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

44. Are you really that confused? Here, let me help...

Clarke testified under oath and in public.

Clarke has a 30 year history of serving his country faithfully, and served under three presidents (Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton) as the top antiterrorist guru. His reputation for honesty and integrity is unsurpassed. He also served under the Resident Select but could do nothing to get he or his advisors to face the threat of terrorism.

Lyin' Leeza had a 4 hour session behind the closed doors of the 911 Commission and was NOT under oath. She has served the NeoCon Junta's government for less than three years and has a history of lying in public every chance she gets.

Your choice...who do you pick?

[MasonJar]

29. Unbelievable! Every member of this Fascist cabal changes

stories with the wind. Condi is one of the worst. First she said that she had never heard of planes as weapons and now.....

[Skittles]

31. HA HA, HA HA HA HA

OMG - conflicting stories? She does not *EVEN* want to go there !!!

[cliss]

32. She'd do it. I mean, she would raise up

her right hand, swear to tell the truth, and proceed to lie, lie and more lie for her boss, BeelzeBush. And she wouldn't worry about it. Oh, she might sweat a little about the water-tightness of her story and make sure it all hangs together since the tape recorder is always on.

You see, they think of themselves as sprinters. They see silly little things like oaths, promises, integrity as nothing more than little sawhorses on the race track that slow down the ordinary "little guy". They don't need that. They sprint over these little 'societal inventions' made to keep the ordinary man in line.

"We MAKE policy, we don't follow it". As she and Donald meet each other's gaze, their eyes glitter. They understand the difference between the leader and the followers.

[SKKY]

43. You know cliss...

I don't think she'd lie. She'd bend the truth to all hell, but I don't think she'd actually bold-face lie. I see Rummy the same way you do, but I don't know, Rice doesn't seem the type to me. Everything thing you wrote above perfectly describes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell- much better than I could. I look at Rice, and it seems to me she's got to be saying to herself, "What the hell am I doing with these clowns?"

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. So far, she has refused to testify under oath, and has indicated that...

...she is willing to say anything in support of the NeoCons in public or behind closed doors.

But put her under oath and I think she will tell the truth if it will keep her out of prison for the charge of treason.

[Zookeeper]

48. Her testimony would include a lot of grey area...

I think she would tell enough of the truth to avoid perjury charges, but not enough truth to be permanently blacklisted from Washington D.C.

[MrTriumph]

40. Condi defends Bush Gang in opinion piece

A piece under her name was in today's Dallas Morning News. Interesting she could find the time to get her side of the story our in the newspaper, but would not appear before the committee.

FWIT, I found Clarke very credible.

[SKKY]

41. Sad, oh so sad...

The people who accused Clinton of "Wagging the Dog" are now the people blaming 9/11 on his Administration, or worse, Blaming Kerry because the terrorists left from Logan Int'l. I find this all very funny and oh so tragic. I want to move to the moon for the next 7 months and come back just in time to vote.

[Zookeeper]

51. I clearly remember "Wag the Dog"....

After the USS Cole bombing, Clinton was in a no-win situation as far as the public/media/partisan Republicans went. There was a great deal of skepticism and speculation that if he launched an immediate counter-attack (on whom, didn't seem to be so well explained), it would be a purely political move decided to give an advantage to the Democrats.

These hearings have reminded me that Clinton was under constant attack from the right-wing and Republicans from the moment he took office. I can't recall any true show of non-partisan support for him during his term. All the self-righteous, whiney Freepers who complain when any doubt is raised about Bushwad should try thinking back to the ugliness that the Republicans demonstrated for eight years!

On edit: Welcome to DU, ScottKnapper! :hi:

[SKKY]

68. Exactly! And...

it's not like we're bringing up something that no one cares about anyway (The BJ Clinton got from Monica). This is the war on terror! This is the single most important historical event, IMHO, that my generation will ever have to face. This is war in the biblical sense, and the Republicans/This Administration are jacking things up. They say we're winning? If we're winning, then who's losing? Bombings in Bali, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and recently Spain, but this administration still claims Iraq was a good idea and that the war on terror is "on course". It's almost insulting they'd think America would buy that crap. I support the President, as my oath of enlistment requires of me, but man, we need to refocus on Terrorism and quit side-stepping the real issue. Sorry for the rant.

[west hollywood dem]

52. Check-out Condi's resume

She is mediocre, at best.

Like her boss.

>http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082399.html

[jeanmarc]

49. There are two very different pictures here, Condi

So why don't you march your ass off the talkshows and into the 9/11 commission and 'TESTIFY UNDER OATH?'

I have seen this liar backoff her 'no one could know of airplanes crashing into buildings' nonsense and that was not under oath. Imagine what she might have to say if she was?

Condi, you lack credibility.

[caledesi]

53. Did anyone catch the "digs" about Condi not being there at

the 9/11 commission? It was great and they said it about 2-3 times. "Gee too bad the very articulate Dr. Rice can't be here today." <definitely tongue in cheek>

[mbperrin]

56. The funny thing about being sworn in is -

they evidently feel it's OK to lie otherwise!

I will not listen to one thing Rice says until after her public and sworn testimony to the satisfaction of the 911 families.

Period.

[yardwork]

67. I'm surprised that people expect her to be truthful under oath.

The * administration has proven again and again that they believe that the God of their understanding is on their side. They believe that any means are acceptable in order to reach their God-ordained ends.

I think that many in the * administration would lie under oath with no hesitation, secure in the belief that "God is telling me that I am doing the right thing to protect America from the Godless heathens who seek to conquer it and take money away from the wealthy and powerful. We must defeat the forces of darkness! Make the pie higher! Lie if necessary!"

[74dodgedart]

57. He was polite at a lunch she invited him to ?

That Condi's defense ? He didn't complain about when I invited him to lunch so, he must be lying...Thats ridiculous.

She has emails from him about terrorists alerts... That can't be right, Big Dick Cheney say he wasn't in the loop. Why would he be emailing anybody if he didn't know anything.

[KansDem]

59. Hey, Condi!...PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!! (eom)

[yellowcanine]

60. Clarke testified under oath, Rice didn't

Until Rice is willing to subject herself to testimony under oath she should just shut up. She wants to get her version out in every venue except public sworn testimony before the commission. Why isn't the media focusing on that glaring example of how the bushbots want to control the message and attack the messenger?

[sidpleasant]

61. Not just Condi: why didn't Ashcroft testify?

Or for that matter Janet Reno? One would think that the nation's highest law enforcement officers would have something of value to offer the commission. Are there more public hearings scheduled?

A 9/11 family member put the Rice issue nicely on the Today show this morning. "Obviously the Bush administration did a cost / benefit analysis and decided that they had less to lose by keeping her from testifying."

[snooper2]

62. bitch

eom

[LiberalFighter]

64. And Rice lied about this!!!

KING: Dr. Rice said that you asked to be the assistant head of the new security agency, painting a picture that you may be in anger over not getting what you wanted and so this book is your way of getting off. What is your response to her statement that you wanted that job?

CLARKE: My response to her statement that, on the one hand I didn't like the department on the other hand I did -- is the following. The president of the United States and Tom Ridge didn't like the idea of the Department of Homeland Security. They spoke publicly against the idea of a Department of Homeland Security. When they were told it was going to pass in the Congress anyway and it was going to be called the Lieberman bill, then they changed on a dime overnight and said it was their idea, and then they said anyone who opposed it was not patriotic, like Max Cleland. They said he was not patriotic because he didn't think there should be a Department of Homeland Security. Max Cleland, who had lost three of his four limbs fighting for the United States, they said he was unpatriotic because he didn't support their stand on homeland security, which was their own stand just a week before.

Interview With Richard Clarke 24 March

[truthisfreedom]

66. rICE accuses cHENEY OF CONFLICTING STORIES... about CLARKE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=443144&mesg_id=443144

what's next? rice accuses all persons whose last names start with the letter 'c' of conflicting stories? hey, that makes sense, condi. hmm...