GOP Chair of Intel comm. takes on Frist's comments on Clarke

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Apr 16, 2004.

  1. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #1
    The Republican Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts (R - Kansas) has publicly disagreed with Frist's rant against Dick Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission.

    The Hill
     
  2. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #2
    How interesting. Of even more curiosity, Frist says his remarks were based a personal reading of the transcript of Clarke's testimony, a transcript Roberts says should not even have been in Frist's possession.
     
  3. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    I wonder how he could have gotten a hold of a copy? Think it was supplied by the same source who gave Novak the information about Ms. Plame?
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    Speaking of which, when are we going to find out who pulled that felonious stunt? I never thought I'd pine for the days of the Special Prosecutor, but do we ever need one now.

    Oh, and I can't help myself: Dodger 3, Giants 2. :)
     
  5. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    IJ, you are such an intelligent guy, don't tell me you are a Dodger fan! :eek: It is a sad day in my house whenever the Bums are on the winning side of a box score.

    Last, I heard about the investigation of the Plame story was that it is expanding to those who may have tried to cover up the crime. We still don't know if the original deed was done out of Rove's office or Cheney's. I've a good feeling that the rats will quickly be jumping ship on this one.
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    i don't think Pat Fitzgerald is the kind of prosecutor to back down. it may take him a while, but i bet he'll get to the bottom of it.
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    I had a feeling about that so I couldn't resist rubbing it in (who knows when I'll get another chance?). We Dodger fans are a long-suffering lot, so cut us some slack. I own a share in a season ticket.

    So what reason do you have to believe that anything will ever come of the Plame story? It's not like anyone is asking about it anymore and certainly the White House would be delighted to see it die.
     
  8. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #8
    Perhaps I could sympathize with your long-suffering if we Giants fans weren't "celebrating" the 50th anniversary of the last Giants World Series win. We may not be in the same class of the Cubs or the Red Sox, but we're getting there. The good side of last night's game was that Schmidt is back and pitching well for his first start, if not as well as Perez.

    What reason do I have to hope the Plame story isn't just going away? Stories like this

    NYT

    It's always the cover-up that gets them.
     
  9. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #9
    I can think of no reason, other than blatant interference from the Bush administration, for the two victories by the Dodgers over the Giants. This terrible act by the neocons can not be allowed to stand -- go Giants. (But I fear they have no pitching this year, even with the return of Schmidt last night.)

    As for the original subject of this thread. Frist's speech was something the Congressman probably already regrets. I am sure he thought that Rice's testimony would directly attack Clarke's testimony -- but it didn't, leaving Frist looking rather silly. I'm sure Frist is not happy with the White House for putting him up to it.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    This thread is a real challenge -- I need to think of something to say about both Bill Frist and the Dodger-Giants rivalry. But since I can't, I'll just go with "how 'bout a sweep?"
     
  11. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #11
    I can't believe it! Bonds on deck with two on and one down in the bottom of the 9th - what does Grissom do - he hits into a easy double play. It is going to be a long season.

    Now IJ, I know you must be asking for a sweep of the Senate in clearing out Frist as majority leader, right? His comments on Clarke deserve no less. I'm actually very hopeful for just such a sweep. Tomorrow the Giants win.
     
  12. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #12
    I don't know what to say about this --other than we have Rep. Sensenbrenner to credit for this:

    9/11 commissioner: 'I've received threats'

    Gorelick says she won't step down; FBI investigating

    Sunday, April 18, 2004 Posted: 4:20 AM EDT (0820 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Jamie Gorelick, a member of the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said Saturday that she received death threats this week after a number of conservatives alleged that her former work in the Justice Department may have contributed to failures leading to the attacks . . .

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/17/gorelick.threats/index.html
     
  13. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #13
    When Ashcroft gave his testimony and kicked off this attack on Gorelick it was clear that the Bush administration had resorted to its time honored mantra of "Clinton did it!" in the face of increasing evidence that the commission isn't going to be uncritical of the Bushies performance pre 9/11. To blame it on Clinton's refusal to give the order to kill bin Ladin (a lie that was disproved on the spot at the hearings) and on Gorelick's 95 memo is unbelievable in its chutzpah. I would quote the bottom of the story numediaman links when it says:

    Not only does this supposed "wall" come from much earlier than the Clinton administration, but Ashcroft's department said nothing about the need to change Clinton's version of the policy, and in fact approved it prior to 9/11. What gets lost in this is the fact that in testimony neither Reno or Ashcroft were ever turned down by the special court that oversees the warrants in question. What must be looked into is why Ashcroft didn't ask for such a warrant in the Moussaoui case. The attempt to blame Gorelick is a transparent attempt to evade responsibility by Ashcroft for his own department's mistakes.

    My guess is this is all about needing an excuse to be able to denounce the findings of the Commission once they are published. If the report comes out and says Bush and his subordinates did not do their jobs, then they will shout about the "partisan nature" of the commission.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Sure, that must be the connection I was looking for.

    Oh, and nice guy that I am, I won't rub it in. (Now, where did I leave that whisk broom?)
     
  15. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #15
    LOL, thanks for not rubbing it in. Oh boy, is this going to be a long season!
     

Share This Page