Clarke caught in yet another lie

MTP transcript ^ | Mar 28, 2004 | Various

[mikegi]

From the Washington Post article on Clarke's SWORN testimony before the 9/11 commission:

"Under questioning by Republican members of the commission, Clarke, who said he voted Republican in 2000, rebutted charges by the White House that he was engaged in a partisan political attack."

From today's Meet the Press transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: And we're back. Did you vote for George Bush in 2000? MR. CLARKE: No, I did not. MR. RUSSERT: You voted for Al Gore. MR. CLARKE: Yes, I did.

[YaYa123]

Clearly, Clarke was parsing his words in order to deceive.

mikegi, thanks for giving a thread to this deception. Most media monkeys wouldn't have even noticed, the rest won't care.

[mikegi]

1. Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

Well now, maybe there is a legal case to be made. Not only was his sworn testimony "misleading", it was intentional, premeditated, incomplete, and calculated to deceive.

[nightdriver]

Yeah, but you see, he did like Kennedy did at the Clarence Thomas hearings. He could lie through his teeth to Russert because he wasn't UNDER OATH! (smirk smirk!)

[easonc52]

yea, but... I'm sure he and Clinton both had their left hand fingers crossed when their right hands were up...

[AmishDude]

I'm getting a really good picture of Clarke now. He's a fairly good specialist. He's incredibly focused and excludes all other considerations from his specialty. Which makes him a horrible decision-maker, as he holds onto his prejudices like a pit bull.

But he also thinks that he's the president (the other guy just does photo-ops and other non-important stuff). Because the democrats could care less about national security, it was easy to promote Clarke to his fairly powerful position because there was no actual democrat pol who could/would take the job.

The Bushies came in and actually cared about the stuff, put some competent people in place and shuffled Clarke back to his specialty.

But instead of being happy to be the Spam Czar, he was rudely reminded that he wasn't the president and that Bush had other people he trusted more, instead of Clinton who shoved it off to mid-level bureaucrats.

[Jank]

Is John McCain a Republican? I thought he was a Rat...

[stop_fascism]

It seems pretty obvious that he is obsessed with Condoleeza Rice. I don't think he liked working for a black woman one bit. I can imagine him thinking, "This woman thinks she can tell me waht to do!. She should be mopping my floors."

[AmishDude]

Yeah, there's that too. I'm not sure that his misogyny can be proven so easily, but I do suspect it's there. The truth is, though, that Condi's being a woman just adds insult to the original injury.

[easonc52]

Agreed.

But he's very darn slick in the way he spins (he got applause several times during the 9/11 commission).

It won't be easy to bring him down (but it would be worth effort if it happens).

[vbmoneyspender]

You gotta give credit to Russert for following up on this. I was annoyed with some of the Republican questioners when they didn't go after Clarke on this at the hearing. When he put out this testimony that he had asked for a Republican ballot in the 2000 Virginia primary, it was clear that he was being artful in his testimony. None of the Republicans though followed up on this. Russert, however, has and, as a result, this is now going to turn into an issue. At a minimum, since Clarke brought this whole issue up, more questions need to be asked about whom voted for in 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, etc. Furthermore, it appears that not only has Clarke voted Democrat, but he has also given money to Democratic candidates.

See my original post on 3/24 on the issue of Clarke having voted Republican in 2000 here here.

And see SW6906's follow up response showing who Clarke gave his money to here

Finally, as someone previously noted on this thread, not only was Clarke artful about receiving a Republican ballot in 2000, but it appears (since Clarke is a Democrat supporter) that he went out of his way in the 2000 primary to vote Republican specifically so that he could vote against Bush. That hardly sounds like someone who is a nonpartisan as far as President Bush is concerned.

[mikegi]

I'm getting a really good picture of Clarke now.

There may be another angle to all this. Has Clarke ever been married? I noticed that the only recorded political contribution he's made was to a former co-worker who was running as a Democrat for the House in MN in 2002. That candidate has no mention of a wife or family on his website.

I fully admit that I'm playing dirty politics but I am royally p*ssed off at the Clarke character. His incompetence cost us 3000 innocent lives and now he's lying through his teeth to cover it up.

[CyberAnt]

"misdirect by cutting off potentially productive sources of intelligence and presenting bogus or doubtful information"

That's a very loaded statement!

No wonder Hillary was happy to have Clarke still in the WH.

I was talking to my mom this morning and I told her that the Clintons were not just a bungling couple - one sex crazed and the other power crazed. They are evil to the core - and the damage they have done to America is going to haunt us for a long time.

I personally didn't think they were that bad - I'm stunned to find out how lethal and how damaging they still are to the USA.

[CyberAnt]

"If this turns out to be true"

I agree - this is mind boggling. I'm hoping these revelations will encourage the WH to get rid of these people before they do anymore damage.

[CyberAnt]

"disassociates himself from all of the mistakes"

Geeeee .. isn't this exactly what Clinton did ..??

[Western Phil]

"You know, as to Senator Frist's comments, that it's filled with highly classified information, it was approved by the White House for release. And anything that the White House found in it that they thought was highly classified was removed."

There was some discussion on this issue on an earlier thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1106393/posts?page=72#72

To: arasina
All I have heard is that any book written by a former employee of the WH - or admin - the book has to be vetted by somebody (not sure who - maybe FBI), to be sure there is no secret stuff being revealed.
Whoever this entity was who perused the book - it wasn't a the WH admin person.
To say the Bush admin had a copy of the book is pretty misleading; which of course was Jane's intent.
70 posted on 03/27/2004 6:51:55 PM PST by CyberAnt
(The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)

[ClintonBeGone]

Lies Lies Lies. I'm having trouble telling the difference between Wesley Clark and Dick Clarke.

[maro]

Someone help me out here. Doesn't Virginia have a caucus system rather than primaries??

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

One could argue that Bush is partly to blame for this in-house attack because he kept Clinton Democrats in key positions during his administration, Clarke and CIA Director Tenet.

. . . and one could argue that the Democratic Party did everything it could in 2001 to weaken Bush's ability to take aggressive action on any front, foreign or domestic.

Having killed his parents, the defendant pleads for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan.

That's the Democratic Party for you.

[Darnright]

"Technically, his testimony wasn't a lie because he said he registered as a Republican in the Virginia primary in 2000."

Virginians don't "register as republicans" or democrats, for that matter, to vote in primaries.

Clarke is so full of cr@p it's not funny.

[KC_Conspirator]

I don't know any Republicans who have failed to vote for another Republican or donate to another Republican in the last 15 years.