FOX News Alert Proves Dick Clarke Is A Lying, Opportunistic Scumbag!

[SPIKESMYGOD]

Now, we all know that Dick Clarke has been running around to "60 Minutes"- owned by Viacom, owner of Clarke's publisher, Simon & Schuster- & all over telling everyone how Bush dropped the ball, never taking the Al Qaeda/bin Laden threat seriously. He, while giving the Clinton administration a kid gloves treatment, has been saying that Clinton & his administration, before handing over the White House keys, gave Bush & his administration a detailed, comprehensive plan on how to deal with the AQ/BL threat. Also, he is saying that Bush and his administration did not change the failed- my word, not his- policies of the Clinton administration. Well?????????


THIS JUST IN:
_____________

In an August, 2002 interview with Fox's Jim Angle, Clarke, before he was shown the door/resigned, claims that the Clinton administration NEVER handed over ANY plan by which the Bush team could deal with bin Laden's terror network. Also, he details, point by point, how Bush & CO. completely overhauled the previous administration's strategy and, further, devised & implemented a very aggressive new formula by which to destroy Al Qaeda, not smply to roll it back.

________

Now, since the liberal mass media have totally propped up this sociopathic liar's attacks on Bush, I wonder how they are going to deal with this heart-breaking development. Now that their new golden boy has been proven to be nothing more than an opportunistic, book-whoring, lying scumbag, I believe that Bill "The Rapist" Clinton, Katie "The C***" Kouric, Dan Rather, Ted "The Killer" Kennedy, Howard Dean, CNN, all the networks, John Kerry, & liberals everywhere should, for their own safety, be forced into therapy & put on suicide watch.

Speaking of suicide.......As I have always contended, if you just let liberals speak enough they will hang themselves with their own words.



Joss, what a great time it is to be a Republican.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Wow. That's pretty indicting stuff. And from Fox?! Man, I know I can rely on them, Fox News being a bastion of journalistic integrity and partisan balance. I do think that Clarke is kind of an opportunistic bastard though, regardless of my feelings on the demagoguery that is Fox News.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Wow. That's pretty indicting stuff. And from Fox?! Man, I know I can rely on them, Fox News being a bastion of journalistic integrity and partisan balance. I do think that Clarke is kind of an opportunistic bastard though, regardless of my feelings on the demagoguery that is Fox News.

WHy don't you try dealing with the facts in the story instead of attacking the source? We'll make a Master Debater out of you yet, Young Gun.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Man, I could say the same thing about you RWA. Except, in my case, I'm not attacking the source in place of engaging in debate on the substance of the issue, and you, well, are. That kind of takes the wind out of the sails of that argument doesn't it? Come on, go back to the other thread and respond. If you really think that Fox News is fair and balanced in the face of all of the facts that I laid out for you, say so. Stand up and quit dodging for God's sake. I would love to see you spin that one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

WASHINGTON — The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.



RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Ok. I have to agree with you there, assuming that the transcript is accurate. I was simply having some fun attacking Fox News for being such a journalistic abomination. You see, I can concede a point in the face of facts. In fact, I hadn't made up my mind until I was aware of the facts of the issue. Isn't that a unique idea? Now, how about you go over to the other thread and amuse me with your attempts to spin out of the conclusion that Fox News is subtly populated with right wingers, and that this makes a mockery of the slogan "fair and balanced".

 

[DKSuddeth]

nothing but smear tactics to discredit a man who spent 30 years in the service of his country. what a hoot.

 

[SPIKESMYGOD]

Syntax-

Sorry, I knew that you liberals would point the finger at FOX, but unless they have digitally copied & manipulated his own voice, this baby is 100% true and will stick.

As for FOX News being "Fair & Balanced," I am the second one, right behind FOX, to admit that they AREN'T truly balanced. Their motto speaks more to the fact that they are a powerful- and annoying to liberals- balance to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, & NBC. I am sure they would be the first to admit that they- even though, unlike the LMM trotting out "conservatives" like David Gergen & John McCain, FOX has actual liberals on for the counterpoint discussions- are a mouthpiece for the Republican party, though I stop short of The White House. Also, unlike the LMM/networks, FOX doesn't go out of their way to purport a sense of total objectivity, when really the networks say it but refuse to admit to being propaganda/attack machines of the left.

I have seen the other networks make huge mistakes, yet never correct themselves. Yet, I have seen, on numerous ocassions, FOX make a mistake & correct it LITERALLY minutes later. Know why? Because to liberals, as long as they have the good intention of bashing Bush & supporting the daily liberal lie, that's good enough; this is where liberals' lack of values, right & wrong, truth or lies, gets them into hot water every single time.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Ok. I have to agree with you there, assuming that the transcript is accurate. I was simply having some fun attacking Fox News for being such a journalistic abomination..

What do YOU know about Jounalism? Are you a journalist? What do you know about integrity? You pen (type?) your quips from a fake moral and other superiority which nausiates me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
nothing but smear tactics to discredit a man who spent 30 years in the service of his country. what a hoot.

Yeah. Whatever. It's his own words from an interview transcript, dk. Don't you think this is fair considering his popping out of the woodwork with his book of lies and that book of lies being cited in an investigation against the current administration during a time of war. This is totally fair game. He wants to say they did nothing. That's not what he said before. It's a typical liberal, excuse me, independant, flip flop, yet again.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yeah. Whatever. It's his own words from an interview transcript, dk. Don't you think this is fair considering his popping out of the woodwork with his book of lies and that book of lies being cited in an investigation against the current administration during a time of war. This is totally fair game. He wants to say they did nothing. That's not what he said before. It's a typical liberal, excuse me, independant, flip flop, yet again.

well, if you'll remember from a previous thread I started about clarke coming out, Jim and some others pointed out some glaring controversy regarding his new book and I agreed that it all looked like it was hype and more of a political ploy than anything at all.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Hey dmp. I actually know a shitload about journalism. My mom was a reporter for the Courier Journal and the Kansas City Star. My cousin is the acting associate editor of the Boston Herald. I am not a journalist, I'm a engineering student, and if you think I'm trying to be holier than thou and morally smug, you're either not reading what I'm saying very well, or need to take some pepto.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
well, if you'll remember from a previous thread I started about clarke coming out, Jim and some others pointed out some glaring controversy regarding his new book and I agreed that it all looked like it was hype and more of a political ploy than anything at all.

So is reporting his contradictory statements really an effort to destroy a thirty year career, and if it is, shouldn't he have expected it? He could have gone out without incident, but no, since he allowed himself to be recruited into the liberal spin machine, he's going down hard. He chose the hard way. Our silver, or our lead.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Man, I could say the same thing about you RWA. Except, in my case, I'm not attacking the source in place of engaging in debate on the substance of the issue, and you, well, are. That kind of takes the wind out of the sails of that argument doesn't it? Come on, go back to the other thread and respond. If you really think that Fox News is fair and balanced in the face of all of the facts that I laid out for you, say so. Stand up and quit dodging for God's sake. I would love to see you spin that one.

All you did is criticize Fox, the source of the story. Do you have a short term memory problem?

 

[winston churchi]

Maybe someone printed it and I didn't come across it - but has anyone read a copy of Clarks resignation to Bush? In this letter he praises Bush for his fight against terrorism.

Strange coming from someone who now claims the opposite is true.

There are rising questions about Clark himself now that I have seen on the news. One question is, did Clark himself have knowledge of anything????

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Hey dmp. I actually know a shitload about journalism. My mom was a reporter for the Courier Journal and the Kansas City Star. My cousin is the acting associate editor of the Boston Herald. I am not a journalist, I'm a engineering student, and if you think I'm trying to be holier than thou and morally smug, you're either not reading what I'm saying very well, or need to take some pepto.

and my wife delivered the WSJ and NYT...so what? You attack the character of Fox News Journalists; provide some level of experience which proves that your opinion matters... that's all

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Everyone that lives in the real world knows that Fox News(save O'reilly occasionally) is a conservative mouthpiece. Here's an example, when John Kerry won the primaries that set him up the nominees and was giving his speech, guess what fox news was running, a member of Bush's reelection organization.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Everyone that lives in the real world knows that Fox News(save O'reilly occasionally) is a conservative mouthpiece. Here's an example, when John Kerry won the primaries that set him up the nominees and was giving his speech, guess what fox news was running, a member of Bush's reelection organization.

It shows both sides, and labels them accurately. That's what you don't like.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Wow. That's pretty indicting stuff. And from Fox?! Man, I know I can rely on them, Fox News being a bastion of journalistic integrity and partisan balance. I do think that Clarke is kind of an opportunistic bastard though, regardless of my feelings on the demagoguery that is Fox News.

I dunno, when they played the sound bite of Clarke said this stuff i found it rather convincing unless you are going to argue that Fox faked the entire interview.

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
It shows both sides, and labels them accurately. That's what you don't like.

Badaboom Badabing!