Rice Accuses Clarke of Conflicting Stories

Myway News via Drudge ^ | Mar 24, 7:58 PM (ET) | Steve Holland

[Texasforever]

I doubt it. He is now a "whistleblower" and is fairly untouchable.

[Richard Kimball]

They'll only get by with this one if we let them. You know what we need to do!

Click on the banner.

[GottaLuvAkitas1]

"There was an exchange between Clarke and Thompson where Thompson was asking about the 1992 statement by Clarke and Thompson asked him if his book didn't directly contradict what he said in the background briefing in 1992."

I guess I was hoping for a sledge hammer effect. LOL

Something like....

Hey, Clinton oops I mean Clarke which story to you want us to believe this week? Today's story, or one of the other many lies you puked up and tried to force feed America?


LOL I am not as nice as I try to teach my kids to be. Maybe some of my Dem. genes from my ancestors are surfacing.

[GOPJ]

Clarke doesn't say what a person has said that's damning, he tells what he thinks they were thinking that was damning.

For instance, if Condi turned and said "nice day", most folks would take her words at face value and assume she meant 'nice day'. Clark would ignore the words, look at her expression or her eyebrows, or whatever and "read" bizarre false meaning into her comment.

Clark might say, "she said 'nice day', but I could tell she wanted to tell me she didn't understand her job". Or that "she wanted to fly" or whatever. In other words, Clark doesn't tell us about Condi, he tells us his own projections.

[Sacajaweau]

There was already a Congressional Hearing on this matter.

Based on the fact of the 60 min expose, the book being (amazingly) available for the hearing folks, the use of it as the "bible" for the commission and the early release of the book, I think we can infer that this was a setup. Now, let's see who was screaming for an independent commission.