Appearing "Under Oath"

[diamond geezer]

Should appearing under oath include enforced polygraph testing??

It seems to me that many politicians only pay lip service to religion when they think it will get them votes.


Wouldn't most people lie to save their careers, hide skeletons in the closet or keep themselves out of prison?

On important matters, the public needs to know that the truth IS the truth.

[mactastic]

Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable.

[patrick0brien]

-diamond geezer

Well, of course she can't tell everything, she is only the holder of some of the most secret information of anybody of the cabinet - it's her job!

So a polygraph - even if useful, would not be a good idea.

This is one of those stories that is much ado about nothing really. Clarke stirred the pot, and now the press has something to jump on for a while.

[zimv20]

This is one of those stories that is much ado about nothing really.
it should at least be about the inconsistent statements she's been making

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before Sept. 11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban. The CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats. And Rice's assertion this week that Bush had told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she had retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.


Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center ... that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she had misspoken; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies, and Clarke, had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.


In an op-ed essay Monday in the Washington Post, Rice wrote that "through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate" al Qaeda that included "sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime" including the use of ground forces.

But Armitage, testifying this week as the White House representative, said the military part was not in the plan before Sept. 11. "I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11," he said. McCormack said Rice's statement was accurate because the team had discussed including orders for such military plans to be drawn up.

In the same article, Rice belittled Clarke's proposals by writing: "The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or 'roll back' the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to 'eliminate' the al Qaeda network." Rice asserted that while Clarke and others provided ideas, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." That same day, she said most of Clarke's ideas "had been already tried or rejected in the Clinton administration."

But in her interview with NBC two days later, Rice appeared to take a different view of Clarke's proposals. "He sent us a set of ideas that would perhaps help to roll back al Qaeda over a three- to five-year period; we acted on those ideas very quickly. And what's very interesting is that ... Dick Clarke now says that we ignored his ideas, or we didn't follow them up."


link (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2004%2F03%2F26%2FMNGSR5RPMV1.DTL)

[wwworry]

If the reasons given to us for starting a war is "much ado about nothing" ....
and that the war in Iraq actually hurts our efforts against Al Qeada is "much ado about nothing" ....
and that this administration consistently lies is "much ado about nothing" ....

then what is the something we should pay attantion to? Does Bush get a free pass because Laura gives good head and Hilary doesn't?

I think democracy is best served by an honest government.