[Dolphy]

I haven't read this elsewhere and have been curious if Ijaz, among others who have been critical of the Clinton administration, have had their say. And I am also curious how it was decided who would testify in public. Clarke is but one voice in hundreds and by featuring him in public testimony all perspective is lost.

[MizSterious]

Not to mention--they gave Clarke much more time than anyone else. I'd like to see Clarke's critics get the same amount of time as he got.

[Eva]

Are you serious? Berger, Albright, Clarke and a host of other Democrats vounteered to testify in public to try to force the administration to do so and play defence. That's all the Democrats are screaming about. Now, it's not going to happen Ijaz will tell it all. He was working for the Clinton administration and was the guy who tried to broker the deal between Sudan and Clinton. He knows that Clinton (and Clarke)could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Clarke was an arrogant fool to think that he could stab the president in the back this way and get away with it.

[rwfromkansas]

Another woman involved with the Sudan situation testified privately to the commission in October.

However, she told me that the commission asked questions that basically kept her from telling what she knew and tried to get her to talk about high level administration stuff she did not know.

I wonder if they will do the same with Ijaz so he can't speak about what he did trying to turn OBL over.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

...and now THIS:


'CLINTON, GORE Not Slated to Give 9/11 Testimony Under Oath'

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1107093/posts

.