Goss Questions Truthfulness of Clarke’s 2002 Testimony- could launch investigation soon

Roll Call ^ | 3-25-2004 | Ethan Wallison

[MEG33]

Yes,or go to the "media" links on FR and click on NY Post.

[dalebert]

Daschle wouldn't know the truth if it bit him.

[lonevoice]

bookmark for later reading

[DLfromthedesert]

Porter Goss is a serious individual whose expertise is security issues. He certainly could never be described as a partisan hack.

[cyncooper]

He won't be found guilty of lying to Goss's committee.

It's his 9/11 commission testimony from yesterday that will be found to be false.

I agree, an investigation into the former should be done as it would provide the basis for demonstrating the latter.

I will not hold my breath that Clarke will face a penalty, so will be content for the documentation to spell it out for posterity.

[okie01]

"He'll probably just fade away like Wilson and O'Neill after a few weeks. And then there'll be another."

And we already know who the "another" will be. And when.

Amb. Joseph C. Wilson IV, he of the sweet mint tea "Mission to Niger" fame, esteemed foreign affairs advisor to Mssr. John Effin' Kerry, will be next. His tissue of lies, “The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Exposed My Wife's CIA Identity--A Diplomat's Memoir”, is scheduled for release on April 30, 2004.

[cyncooper]

It is not criminal to print lies in a book, as when the writer puts the words on paper, no oath is sworn out, no affidavit is signed. The book really should be reclassified as fiction, however.

He took an oath in front of the 9/11 commission yesterday and proceeded to testify according to his book.

[jwalsh07]

This is serious. Porter Goss is a serious man, an ex spook and a man with nothing to lose. This is gonna be something.

[Torie]

Clarke is very skilled at explaining it all away. I listened to the bastard. He is even better at it than Clinton. Of couse, Goss might have heard more than has hit the media. Goss is a serious and a relatively non partisan figure. He's pissed, and I'm pissed. Birds of a feather. :)He's probably just venting, but maybe not.

[xm177e2]

He won't be found guilty of lying to Goss's committee.

It's his 9/11 commission testimony from yesterday that will be found to be false.

Either way, Bush wins.

[cyncooper]

Here is what the article says:

Goss suggested that the statements from 2002 more accurately reflected the substance of what Clarke had told the Intelligence panel during that time.

You say:

well Clark could go down for lying to Goss's committee.

My guess is Clarke is not going down for lying to Goss's committee. Goss is saying he told us one thing then and now he's saying something else. Which is true? So far documentation supports Clarke utterances from before the book came out.

Of course, I don't know all of what he said back then. I do know on the Senate side Chris Shays was frustrated with Clarke's cooperation and attitude as far back as July 2000, so perhaps he was less than forthcoming. But my point is the book and yesterday's testimony are the areas where Clarke can be proven as lying, so that's where I think this would head.

[jwalsh07]

Clarke testified before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in closed session. LAst night Saxby Chambliss said that the testimony he gave in the senate was 180 degrees out of phase with his TV and Commission appearances. Now Goss says the same thing about his House appearance.

And to top it off Lehman said that the 15 hours oof testimony given by Clarke in closed session to the Commission was 180 out from his grandstanding. He's a hack, he hates Bush because he didn't get Condi Rices job or an appointment as second in command of Homeland Security and he has friends in the media and on the left. But he's also got a record. If I was Bush, I'd have Rice testify, let the House and Senate have hearings on his testilying and tie him to the dems who have come out to support him.

This is make or break, if they buts Dubyas credibility vis a vis the WOT we can't win. Fight the bastards to the death. Draw bayonets. Lock and Load. CHARGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nopardons]

Yes, it's time to put a stop to the game playing. And lying,under oath, to a Congressional committee IS perjury and considered to be a criminal act.

[Torie]

I agree that is important that both sides fully vent on this issue, and that it all comes out, and do it in a way that captures the attention of the soccer moms. Clarke's main beef is that Bush moved too deliberately in taking the gloves off, although they were about to come off after deliberation, when it all came down. If Bush had said just do it, as soon as he was inaugurated, the charge that he was a reckless cowboy still fighting the Alamo, and a warmonger, who was in favor of reckless and destabilizing preemptive action, would have been the talking point of the day. Hey, it is NOW isn't it, even after 9-11? One can't win for losing.

F 'em, all of them.

[MEG33]

See my #30...he'll fit right in.

[ladyinred]

His obvious perjury is why the rats have been out there attacking the attacks against Clarke with such a vengeance today. They have got to head this off at the pass so to speak. IOW, Clarke is the victim of the RNC hit squad. See liars are okay, unless they are Pubbies.

[lainde]

And now er have to listen to the liar as an ABC news "consultant"!

[NormsRevenge]

ABC has a news program 8-?

Is that what you call it?

lol.. You could have fooled me. :-\

[M. Peach]

"Daschle has a vested interest. I believe that it was he who appointed Roemer, Ben-Veniste and Gore-lick to the committee."

Can someone tell me how in the hell he was able to pull this off without any debate or challenges from anyone? This is so outrageous that they would have such partisans ruling or judging such an important matter.

To be fair, is there the same type of partisanship on the Republican side?

[Jim_Curtis]

Where is my Senator Coleman on this? He runs that investigations committee in the Senate. He needs to be pestered.