...seems to divulge classified information:
Here's the Frist quote from this NYT transcript of his statement of the floor today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/politics/26CND-PTEX.html?pagewanted=1
Third, Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath. In July 2002, in front of the Congressional Joint Inquiry on the September 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke testified under oath that the Administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first seven months in office.
Contrast this with the statement in this AP article:
Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarke's testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.
Which is it Bill? How do you know he told two different stories under oath if you didn't know that there were any discrepancies?
And, by the way, should you be divulging classified testimony "that the Administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al Qaeda during its first seven months in office." Isn't that a crime? Just asking.
The troublesome statement that Frist said that he didn't know of any discrepancies was subsequently removed from the follow-up AP story:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/03/26/national1235EST0573.DTL
A search of Google only lists the Daily News and the Washington Post as running the initial David Espo story:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/177534p-154490c.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26876-2004Mar26.html
Here's the entire text of the Espo story from the Washington Post:
Republicans Seek to Declassify 2002 Clarke Testimony
By David Espo
AP Special Correspondent
Friday, March 26, 2004; 12:57 PM
In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.
Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath -- either in 2002 or this week -- when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the war on terror.
"Until you have him under oath both times you don't know," Frist said.
One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the request had come from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee.
The request was the latest evidence of a counterattack against Clarke, who has criticized Bush both in a new book and in his appearance before the bipartisan commission on Wednesday.
In his testimony, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq had undermined the war on terror.
The request for declassification applies to Clarke's appearance in July 2002 before a meeting of the intelligence committees of both the House and Senate.
No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public.
Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarke's testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.
Here's the entire text of the Espo story from the Daily News:
Republicans seek to declassify 2002 Clarke testimony
By DAVID ESPO
AP SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON -- In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.
Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath -- either in 2002 or this week -- when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the war on terror.
"Until you have him under oath both times you don't know," Frist said.
One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the request had come from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee.
The request was the latest evidence of a counterattack against Clarke, who has criticized Bush both in a new book and in his appearance before the bipartisan commission on Wednesday.
In his testimony, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq had undermined the war on terror.
The request for declassification applies to Clarke's appearance in July 2002 before a meeting of the intelligence committees of both the House and Senate.
No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public.
Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarke's testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.
Without mentioning the congressional Republicans' effort, White House spokesman Scott McClellan continued the administration's criticism of Clarke on Friday.
"With every new assertion he makes, every revision of his past comments, he only further undermines his credibility," McClellan told reporters.
Asked about Bush's personal reaction to the criticism from a former White House aide, McClellan said, "Any time someone takes a serious issue like this and revises history it's disappointing."