posted
First it was Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who's criticism of the President's case for war in Iraq resulted in leaked information going to the press showing his wife to be a CIA agent, and possibly endangering her life.
Then it was Paul O'Neil who gave an interview with 60 Minutes about the inner workings of the White House. One of the first things that Republicans did was launch a full investigation of Mr. O'Neil and his possible treasonous use of "Top Secret" material shown on the TV show.
It has since been reported that while some of the information the Mr. O'Neil used was Top Secret, the fault was not his. The sercurity people should not have given it to him. He didn't sneak it out, they handed it to him. Mr. O'Neil's prosecution has been dropped.
Now, Mr. Clarke has stirred up controversy questioning President Bush's pre-9/11 record on terrorism. One of the first things done is that Republicans in Congress seek to open up his earlier confidential reports to congress, not to check his story, or to prove him wrong, but to to determine whether Clarke lied under oath .
This seems that someone wants to direct all the power of the United States into convicting Mr. Clarke of perjury--of arresting and prosecuting him, of punishing someone who spoke against the President of the United States.
We have been told that we need to trust our elected officials with new powers to stop terrorism. We have been told that such powers will not be abused or used in petty revenge fits or political power plays. We have been told by the smiling Mr. Ashcroft and the smiling President Bush to "Trust Us." How come I have trouble believing them?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So O'Neill didn't reveal Top Secret material? An investigation shouldn't have been called for?
If Clarke claims one day that Bush is doing a fantastic job dealing with terrorism and the next day he claims Bush has botched everything didn't he lie at some point in time? If this lying potentially jeopardizes the lives of American soldiers by causing Congress to take incorrect action shouldn't be prosecuted?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's get a bit real. "...challenge to the Bush administration...if [Clarke] is not believable...then prosecute him for perjury..." More likely, it's just some sleazoids shooting their mouths off slandering Clarke cuz CongressionalRules forbid criminal&civil prosecution of Congressmen for lying.
Just like they won't let Rice's or Dubya's testimony to be made under oath, or to become public. No oath means no perjury. And if only three people (including the "witness") know what was said, nobody else can call either of them a liar.
posted
Careful Dan, you didn't say that Bush was the mostest almighty person and the bestest person to ever hold the title of POTUS (aside from Reagan that is), so you'll be branded a commie liberal and will be tarred and feathered.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that cheap shot.
Yeah, I think that it's a dangerous precident that's being set forth here. I think it's really sad that people are so petty (and they really are, regardless of political affiliation) that they'll misuse powers that were granted to help fight terrorism to pursue their own agenda. Hopefully calmer heads will prevail or at least will realize that they risk having the same thing happen to them later in life.
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a great article on MSNBC about how Clarke handled himself during his time on the stand that just made me laugh. Unfortunately, our proxy server here at work SUCKS and I can't find it to link to it.
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl: no, the investigation should have been conducted quickly and discretely behind the scenes by the appropriate agency. And when it was found to have nothing to do with O'Neill, that part of it should have been quietly dropped.
Using a government criminal investigation for political ends with no regard for whether or not the accusations are true is one of the things a certain branch of the Republican party has become very good at.
Congressional investigations are equally accessible by both parties; one always has a chance to respond on approximately level ground. But when one can come up with a juicy criminal investigation and spread it all over the news, even if it completely exonerates a person it undermines their character in a way that should not happen.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So when a Kerry supporter is being investigated it should be done in a quiet manner, but when a Bush supporter allegedly does something its a democracy and the people should have information? I'm sick of the double standard. Why should an investigation be covered up when O'Neill wanted the publicity, after all wasn't he on 60 Minutes? If you're ready for the positive publicity be ready for the negative as well.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No . . . both sides should feel free to publicize congressional investigations about anything. That is, after all, the basic nature of congressional investigations: public (though it may not be so in some specialized cases dealing with classified information, for instance).
Criminal investigations should not be exploited by either side.
I have made no party distinctions. Why are you so viciously partisan?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not being viciously partisan, I'm just sick of people wanting a double standard and I think that's what you've arguing for as well. Investigations are made public all the time and its only when the investigation is of a Kerry supporter liberals complain.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Name one criminal investigation of a Republican that Democrats were the ones who leaked and trumpeted all over the news.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Criminal investigations are regularly announced? Could you link to the press release or a clear citation of such an announcement by the investigating body?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, every investigation is prompted by complaints from the other side.
The only difference is in how the media reports it. Compare the headline "Bush May Have Lied About WMD's" to "Republican Hate Machine Continues Assult on Clarke."
Both stories have pretty much the same content--political opponents slinging mud at each other--but one reports the allegations as news, while the other is reporting the making of the allegations as news.
posted
I'm not talking about the complaints about criminal investigations, I'm talking about them being used as tools to undermine credibility. I'm still waiting for a single example of Democrats having done that to Republicans.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're so sure they exist aplenty perhaps you recall even some minor details about one. I'm a fairly adept searcher given a place to start.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Here's an account of how the Democrats didn't talk about it very much at all, and the only decent uncovering was done by the press: http://www.sfbg.com/reality/04.html
(these are some of the top searches for Cheney Halliburton in google).
Now lets see what we can pull up on criminal investigations of Cheney . . . if the Democrats have been talking about them, surely some sites on the web will be:
The investigation saw pretty much zero play in the US, unfortunately. I can't seem to find any interviews or other direct sources (and transcripts of such things are all over the web) of democrat officials mentioning it, though. Kind of strange, as the assertion is that Democrats were exploiting a criminal investigation for political gain.
And btw, that it wasn't made a big deal of rather undercuts the assertions on the complete bias of the american media.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee -- you <edit>probably</edit> heard about the investigations because they were leaked by somebody. Leaking happens, that doesn't make it right.
Also, leaving aside how investigations are uncovered, my main accusation is on the usage of them as a political bludgeon.
posted
The investigation got little airplay on the media? Are you serious?
I realize this is Hatrack, and we're supposed to be civilized and not make this personal, but were you hiding in a box?
This thing was EVERYWHERE. You couldn't get away from it. A quick search gives me links to NPR,The New Yorker,USA Today,ABC, do you think I couldn't go on?
posted
It was Cheney's criminal investigation that got little play, the Halliburton charging accusations were a different matter. The Cheney criminal investigation citings demonstrate that the complete liberal bias nfl alleges in the media does not exist.
I was expecting it to be possible to find such things, and as I have already done I condemn it on both sides. Then nfl started flinging around accusations about my partisanship, and wasn't backing up anything he said. So I demanded evidence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bothers me more about this whole thing is that the administration has made it clear that if you betray it, it will do everything in its power to destroy your career and your reputation. It will sully your name, suggest that you are motivated only by the desire for revenge, publicity or money, and almost inevitably leak information that will lead to criminal charges for actions taken on behalf of the very administration that's determined to wield the axe. And it will steadfastly deny anything you say, but will provide no evidence or arguments to the contrary; if pressed by the press, it will merely question the honesty of your motivations again. This seems to be the modus operandi.
posted
The administration hasn't tried to ruin the reputation of people who have betrayed it? What about Clarke? I'd say that they're trying very hard to destroy his reputation outright (even the news media has picked up on how fast the Republicans are trying to discredit him).
It's just nice to claim that the administration is nothing but nice when you're the party in power (taking nfl's words for a spin there).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clarke is trying to discredit the administration. He has two motivations for doing so: To avoid blame as the man responsible for counter-terrorism throughout Al-Queada's rise to prominence, and to make money on his book deal.
As for comparing his testimony now and before, that makes good sense to me. Examining what was said and done before the attack is the whole point of the 9/11 panel, isn't it? It's simple, cheap, and potentially will provide a lot of information about Clarke's credibility.
The Democrats haven't been to shy about publicly calling for classified files to be turned over, have they?
posted
Those two motivations are probablly part of it. Probably some others, too, particularly if Bush was all over him to go after Iraq and trying to downplay Al-Quaeda initially, such as a motivation for Bush's record on terrorism to be perceived accurately.
Clarke's not a party partisan. He was appointed by Reagan and served all the way through to the first part of the current administration. I think assuming he's out to smear Bush purely for ulterior motives is ignoring his own qualifications, which are considerable.
Also, note that he long advocated taking out Bin Laden, and supported it whenever the CIA said they had a possible shot at it (at least during the Clinton administration, I haven't heard about the other administrations). Its just that every time it got called off, sometimes for political reasons, sometimes for potential incidental casualties. His record on being a staunch advocate about taking on terrorism is not in question.
Also, he was not the one collecting the evidence or doing the low level analysis. He was a policy level official, which means he had nothing to do with missing signs of an attack, it was not his job. His job was to deal with the reports and information post-sifting. And witht hat information he did say, consistently, that Al Quaeda was a serious threat to the US and should be eliminated.
Blaming him for 9-11 like Bush is trying to do is like blaming Bush for 9-11. Neither makes a lot of sense or is particularly accurate. Saying Bush largely ignored Al Quaeda before 9-11 despite the advice of an expert does seem to be accurate.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize, I misspoke in a very inaccurate manner. I was trying to say blame Clarke for Al Quaeda not having been properly dealt with, by republican officials suggesting all over the news (quite similarly to your own suggestion) that Clarke was somehow not hot enough on the trail of Al Quaeda. That claim is ridiculous: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/politics/24CND-PANE.html?pagewanted=1&8bl (I'm specifically referring to where it talks about him criticizing the Clinton administration for not doing enough against Al Quaeda, and the Bush administration similarly, for turning down his plans in 2000 to bomb Al Quaeda).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But they haven't done that. Its just a nice thing to claim when you're the opposition."
Really? NFL, can you name a single official of the Bush administration who, upon criticizing it, was not immediately brutalized by that administration, ruthlessly insulted and marginalized, and either immediately accused of crime and/or suffered deliberate career sabotage? Heck, the Bushies have even gone after the FAMILIES of critics.
The Bush Administration has no value higher than loyalty to itself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, would having Powell moved to the sideline count? I was thinking of how often the Bush Whitehouse is praised as having a "tight ship" in terms of his team. People don't speak up unless they have a playbook...except Powell in 2002. He was the only (to my knowledge) person working for Bush to come out publicly and say he didn't think the time was right for an Iraq invasion. He was sort of quickly quieted and then (as punishment?) had to be the one to sell the world on the WMD threat.
posted
Tom, I don't think you can name one that was. Again its nice to put conjecture and guess together to form what is for you a pleasant conclusion but that doesn't make it true.
Clarke's character should be "assasinated" because he is telling two different stories. One says Bush has been running the war on terror perfectly, the other blames Bush for 9/11.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom, I don't think you can name one that was."
Check the top of this thread for THREE. Of course, it's not me doing the naming, but those are the ones who spring to mind immediately.
You also miss the fact that Clarke, during his testimony, basically said that he put a positive spin on Bush's performance -- at the administration's request -- back when he was working for them. I find this unsurprising, and rather likely.
------
And yeah, it's pretty obvious they sidelined Powell once they used him to sell the war to the moderates. He's been almost completely marginalized ever since.
quote:One says Bush has been running the war on terror perfectly, the other blames Bush for 9/11.
This is the biggest point that the Bush folks are putting on the airwaves...quoting him as an employee and then again when he isn't. The fact of the matter is, it is his job...as well as everyone who works for Bush...to sell things in the best light possible. My exception to this is of course Powell, who was the first and last (to my knowledge) "insider" who spoke his mind contrary to the Bush line. Since then, he has been sidelined and none since then have done so. Maybe it was the "tell it like I say it" leadership that started Clarke on the path to not only leaving, but leaving with a tell-all.
If he geninuinely felt like this administration was doing the best job, after working in FOUR administrations (mostly Republican, mind you) don't you think he would still be working for them and saying positive things.
The most telling point, happinly brought to light by The Daily Show, is that most of the response from the White House as been character assassination, not responses to the points raised in the book.
posted
More on Powell...I would LOVE to read his book when he is safely out of this White House. Sadly, he probably won't do this for quite some time. Unlike Clarke, who is obviously not worried about a future in politics anymore, Powell still has hopes for a future in government. He was a short-list contender for the presidency in 2000, if I recall (and still the better choice than the current). He still has hope for his future in politics and even his sidelined gig would pay off for him as he is the only one still inside who was willing, if only once, to say "this just doesn't look right" and lived to tell about it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
