On 3 Aug 2004 15:54:09 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:39:35 GMT, felton said:


Thanks. As I suspected there were no facts there to back up your
claims. The Republicans *claim* his stories differed, the Democrats
say they don't, the Republicans don't want to declassify the reports
or charge him with perjury, but we are supposed to take their word for
it that it happened.

I've read that US reading skills have deteriorated badly, buy I would have
thought you went through the system earlier.

Which part of this first sentence of the AP report do you not understand:

I believe I understood the report quite well. Your charge that Clarke
told two different stories, both under oath, is supported by a *claim*
by Republicans Frist and Hastert. At the same time, while they
*claim* they wish to desclassify the reports, there has been no effort
to do so, even though the Republicans would easily have the votes.

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury. Democrats who attended both the public and the nonpublic
testimony of Clarke contend there was no substantive difference.

Now you find the Republican charges credible with NO evidence of the
fact. Which part of that don't you understand?

"Key Republicans in Congress want to declassify 2002 testimony by former
counterterrorism official Richard Clarke,..."

....so they say. Why don't they?


And which part of this are you having problems comprehending:

"Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., want to make public
Clarke's classified testimony in July 2002 before a joint House-Senate
intelligence inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Ray Charles could have seen through that. If Clarke gave
substantially different testimony, on the record and under oath, then
we would have had something other than a Frist/Hastert press
conference. I am certain that this administration would love nothing
better than to discredit Clarke, but they haven't because they
can't....not because they have chosen not to.

I am surprised that you are so gullible.