REPUBLICAN SLIME MACHINE
GOP seeks to declassify Clarke testimony

From the New York Times via the Houston Chronicle:

Referring to Clarke's six-hour appearance in 2002 before the joint congressional inquiry -- when Clarke was still on the White House staff -- Frist said Clarke was then "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration," a sharp contrast to his appearance this week before the independent commission in which he testified that the White House had failed to treat the terror threat with the urgency it deserved.

Frist accused Clarke of "profiteering" with his book, which has jumped to the top of best seller lists, and branded as "theatrical" the apology Clarke offered this week to relatives of Sept. 11 victims for failing to stop the attacks. He said that to "apologize on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility."

Frist did not act alone. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who has long warned that the work of the independent commission could become a "political football" in the midst of the presidential campaign, said on Friday that he had joined in the request to have the testimony declassified.

"We need to lean forward in making as much information available to the public as possible, without compromising the national security interests of the nation," Hastert said in a statement.

Congressional Democrats who were involved in the joint committee's investigation said their recollection of Clarke's testimony was different, and that they knew of no contradiction between what Clarke said then and what he was saying now.

Click here for more.

It is important to note, as has been observed by many others at this point, that the Bush administration isn't really responding to Clarke's allegations. I mean, they have said something to the effect that they think Clarke is wrong, but they've offered nothing more substantial than that. Tom Tomorrow and Atrios have also noted that it is entirely possible that Clarke was, indeed, lying during his 2002 testimony, but that he was being a good soldier and lying for his commander-in-chief. In fact, I just now saw Clarke himself on Fox News during testimony before the 9/11 comission saying something to that effect--he testified that he was asked to highlight positive aspects of Bush's counterterrorism programs, and that he had issued similar statements for every president for whom he had worked in the past. Clearly, this wacky declassification scheme is just another day on the job for the Republican slime machine.

So, Clarke's not lying, but Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is. From MSNBC courtesy of Eschaton:

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Frist said in a speech from the Senate floor, alleging that Clarke said in 2002 that the Bush administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al-Qaida before the attacks.

Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances. But he said, "Until you have him under oath both times, you don't know."

Click here for the rest of the article.

Well, Bill, which one is it? Is Clarke a perjurer or not? Better be careful, Bill. All that GOP slime can get to be a bit sticky when you're in it up to your neck. Better hope you don't end up with all that slime over your head...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$