ceejayoz's Journal: In The Loop / Under Oath

Faith-Based Aide's Charges Denied

WASHINGTON, January 21, 2003 -- Bush administration officials today denied allegations that the White House lacks a coherent policy-making process and is dominated by a small clique of conservatives aides known as the "Mayberry Machiavellis."

The charges, reported in the current issue of Esquire magazine, were made by John DiIulio, Bush's former top advisor on faith-based initiatives. However, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said DiIulio was "not in the loop."

White House Denies O'Neill's Charges on Iraq

WASHINGTON, January 14, 2004 -- Bush administration officials today criticized comments from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who claimed in a recent 60 Minutes interview that President Bush and his top aides began planning for an invasion of Iraq within days of taking office.

O'Neill was "not in the loop," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Cheney: Clarke's Charges Not Credible

WASHINGTON, March 22, 2004 -- White House officials reacted with anger today to charges by President Bush's former top counter-terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, that the president has badly bungled the war on terrorism.

Clarke, who blasted the Bush administration in a 60 Minutes interview Sunday, "wasn't in the loop," Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview Monday with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

Okay... someone want to enlighten me here? Just who exactly IS in the loop? And why was the anti-terrorism adviser out of the loop? What kind of anti-terrorism strategy is it to not tell your anti-terrorism head anything?

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice offered last night to sit down one more time with the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But last night's offer to testify came with conditions: The meeting would be held in private, and not under oath.

David Gregory of NBC News asks: 'So why not testify under oath?'

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales says it's unnecessary, because administration officials are duty-bound to tell the truth anyway.

Administration officials shouldn't have to testify under oath because they're supposed to tell the truth? Does this seem weird to anyone else? Testifying under oath was good enough for Clinton, wasn't it?

well, I'd tell you...

[Em Emalb]

but you're not in the loop.

Thank you, I'll be here all week!

ahem

[dubiousdave]

Testifying under oath was good enough for Clinton, wasn't it?

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, doesn't it? If they're going to lie to me, I'd prefer they not do it under oath. It's less insulting that way.

Re:ahem

[robi2106]

Under oath doesn't mean anything more than lying under oath. The only differences is if you are found out to have lied while under oath it is a crime.

That is the 11th commandment. "Thou shall not get caught."

jason

the loop

[js7a]

You are "in the loop" when your leash is so securely fastened as to be unremovable.

ethics

[eglamkowski]

I'm sure you've heard this by now, but just in case:

Clarke's book is being published by Viacom, which also happens to be the owner of CBS where Clarke's book was pushed on "60 Minutes".

Given that nobody on CBS or on "60 Minutes" ever told you this before or during the interview, this makes it a SEVERE and blatant ethics violation and is clearly politically motivated.

People complain about Bush being evil, but his critics are no better.

Why should I take the word of a disgruntled ex-employee seriously anyw

Re:ethics

[ceejayoz]

Why should I take the word of a disgruntled ex-employee seriously anyways?

Because a number of them are all saying the same thing? Because Clarke has been a registered Republican and voted for Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.? (and before you trot out the campaign contributions - two contributions to friends who happen to be Dems made during the Clinton administration do not a pattern make) Because the Bush administration is hiding behind executive privilege instead of rebutting him?

As for executive privi

Re:ethics

[eglamkowski]

Because a number of them are all saying the same thing?

O'Neill recanted.
Clarke has been caught in blantant contradictions.
Who else?

These folks tell the same story for a few days and than either take it back or are shown to be liars.

I repeat: why should I take them seriously?

Re:ethics

[spun]

Clarke hasn't been caught in anything, despite what the Bush camp implies. He called for his original testimony before Congress to be declassified a long time ago, and again recently. If there is a real contradiction, it has yet to come out. Where is the contradiction you speak of?

Re:ethics

[eglamkowski]

Clarke has been caught lying over and over. He says things now that 100% contradict things he's said in the past. Either he's lying now, or he was lying when he said these other things. This is documented just everywhere.

Take, for example, his joint-agency report on an Iraq-9/11 connection. On "60 Minutes" he said the report came back with a note "Wrong answer". In fact, it came back saying "Please update and resubmit." Which could mean any of a large number of things, but Clarke doesn't give us enou

Re:ethics

[spun]

Oh please, he was working for Bush at the time, he was under orders to stretch the truth. Clinton was on the ball. Anti-terrorism was a top priority for the Clinton team. Bush dropped the ball before 9/11, it's an indisputable fact.