Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Clarke wants Rice's testemony on the preceedings leading up to the World Trade Center attacks, and I think she owes that to us.
There is not a single thing that happened during the Clinton administration that people would give two hoots about, short of Monica Lewinsky. I'm sorry but when you are the National Security advisor during the biggest terrorism attack in this countries history, you need to step up to the plate
your comparing apples to oranges here.
__________________
RIP Tim
Last edited by Ryanwb; March 29th, 2004 at 07:28 PM.
I admire his courage in coming out with his statements, and in sticking to his guns against probably the biggest PR machine, or "spin" machine, of all time. The reaction against his statements was incredible, and yet there he is on TV again this weekend, backing up his statements, calling for complete declassification of all docs, etc.
Senator Frist said lat week he was going to push to declassify all of Clarke's records from the Bush administration. That should set the record straight.
Clarke wants Rice's testemony on the preceedings leading up to the World Trade Center attacks, and I think she owes that to us.
So, its okay for him to claim separation of powers, but its not okay for her? That's called hypocrisy.
Quote:
There is not a single thing that happened during the Clinton administration that people would give two hoots about, short of Monica Lewinsky. I'm sorry but when you are the National Security advisor during the biggest terrorism attack in this countries history, you need to step up to the plate
your comparing apples to oranges here.
So, the separation of powers is only valid 'sometimes'? I'm sorry, its times like these that the separation of powers should be strenghtened, not weakened. If she testifies, or worse, Congress tries to compel her to, there will be a widespread and irreversible chilling effect between Presidents and advisors. No one will ever say anything and our security will suffer for it.
This is NOT a partisan viewpoint in this instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buseinspectrum
I admire his courage in coming out with his statements, and in sticking to his guns against probably the biggest PR machine, or "spin" machine, of all time. The reaction against his statements was incredible, and yet there he is on TV again this weekend, backing up his statements, calling for complete declassification of all docs, etc.
So, it doesn't matter to you his book and public testimony contradict not only what he said in private session, but pretty much everything he ever said prior to leaving his job? Each day that goes by, more and more items in his book get discredited by factual evidence. He is losing his credibility, not gaining it.
Edit: They have hours of her testimony behind closed doors. To call for her to testify publically under oath is unprecedented. To me, it is easy to see why. Democrats want to use this ocassion to try to tarnish her or worse. They realize she is a potential Prez or Veep candidate, and a formidable one at that.
Personally, she would eat the commission up. She would make Clarke look foolish (actually, she's done that already). But that is not the point.
__________________
Fell deeds awake... Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and the Red Dawn...
Last edited by WaywardFan; March 30th, 2004 at 06:12 AM.
I think it's ironic that the left is ripping on her for not testifying in public, yet it was okay for Clinton and Gore to only talk to the commission behind closed doors.
Today, I heard that the White House has given her permission to testify publicly, which is something that's never been done before. The NSA deals in secrets and confidential matters, so it will be interesting to see what she is able to talk about and what she still cannot publicly disclose.
__________________
"If Chuck is Solo, Larkin is his Fett!" - Morgan
I think it's ironic that the left is ripping on her for not testifying in public, yet it was okay for Clinton and Gore to only talk to the commission behind closed doors.
Today, I heard that the White House has given her permission to testify publicly, which is something that's never been done before. The NSA deals in secrets and confidential matters, so it will be interesting to see what she is able to talk about and what she still cannot publicly disclose.
Also, that she gave 4 hours of testimony to the commission already. With the retoric you hear you would think she never talked to them.
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
Senator Frist said lat week he was going to push to declassify all of Clarke's records from the Bush administration. That should set the record straight.
Actually Senator Frist has backed away from that idea of late. Actually, it may have had something to do with Clarke's saying he thought releaseing those records would be a good idea. In fact, he added a pretty big list of other memos and documents that he thought should be released as well and turned over to the 9-11 commission.
In today's (Mar 30, 2004) East Valley Tribune there is an excellent Editorial by Jon Kyle, regarding Clarke. (Sorry, I am unable to post of link to it because it doesn't appear to be on their website.)
Kyle's point (as already has been made in this thread) is that Clarke's current statements, and those made in his book, contradict statements Clarke himself made only a couple years ago.
Richard Clarke - Hypocrite!!!
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Kyle's point (as already has been made in this thread) is that Clarke's current statements, and those made in his book, contradict statements Clarke himself made only a couple years ago.
Declassify all the documents in question and let the 9-11 committee sort it out.
There is not a single thing that happened during the Clinton administration that people would give two hoots about, short of Monica Lewinsky. I'm sorry but when you are the National Security advisor during the biggest terrorism attack in this countries history, you need to step up to the plate.
What about the Embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole? Those are the things the commission Clarke refused to testify at were investigating, not Clinton's sexual harassment behavior. From your very own words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanwb
when you are the National Security advisor during the biggest terrorism attack in this countries history, you need to step up to the plate.
Wasn't Clarke the National Security advisor during those terrorist attacks?
Richard Clarke is all about the sales of his book.
Tetris Champion!
Linear Mode
