On 3 Aug 2004 16:32:16 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:09:42 GMT, felton said:

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.

Lessee:

"Goss [Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee] said he ...... plans to
request the declassification in case a need for public hearings or other
disclosure arises."

and

"The allegations against him [Clark] could linger for weeks as the
declassification request winds through the appropriate agencies to ensure
sensitive national security information isn't revealed. Often most protected
are the "sources and methods" of gathering intelligence."

At the same time, they are not suggesting that Clarke committed
perjury.

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

Lessee here. You figure that because the votes are there they'll just vote
on the matter without any particular study of just what it is they're
releasing. And you find it outrageous that with the evidence still
classified Frist isn't yet ready to label one of Clark's two versions of the
facts perjury. But with the evidence still classified you are in a position
to conclude, on the basis of one Democrat's "best recollection," that there
exists not a scintilla of evidence of a fib. I get it.

I am just a bit surprised that without *any* evidence you have already
drawn your conclusion that the charges *alleged* by Frist and Hastert
are anything other than political damage control. You appear to find
it plausible that Clarke would commit perjury, on the record and under
oath in order to sell his book. That would seem to be the easiest
thing to prove, and yet there is NO proof.

So I guess it makes sense to you to just accept their charges as fact
and sit patiently by waiting for things to play out. How long do you
think that might take? Late November? I really have to shake my head
that people just accept what they are told with absolutely no support
offered.

Having read the book and listened to his sworn testimony, I'll accept
what he said over Frist and Hastert until proven otherwise. Let me
know when you have anything other than a smear campaign to back the
version you choose to believe.