Talk about a flip flopping hypocrite!

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Mar 25, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Anyone who believes this guys 9/11 testimony needs their head examined.

    Clarke on Tape: Bush Admin. Planned to Eliminate al-Qaida

    In addition to Richard Clarke's praise of President Bush in Clarke's own resignation letter, the former counterterror czar contradicts himself, while speaking on tape to reporters at a White House briefing in 2002, and actually defends the Bush administration.

    He details how the new administration changed existing plans on how to deal with al-Qaida and increased covert operations funding "five-fold."

    Clarke told reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle, who posted a transcript of the tape on foxnews.com, back in 2002:

    # "There was no plan on al Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

    # The Bush administration was briefed on the existing plans and strategy regarding Afghanistan, among other things, that the Clinton administration had in place.

    # The Bush administration decided to "increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaida."

    # Once the administration was fully in place, in March or April - because of the election debacle - the new administration "then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaida over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaida."

    The 9/11 commision hearings have unfortunately become the 'beat witnesses over the head with Richard Clarke's book' hearings, but now at least this new evidence suggests that Mr. Clarke may simply be wrong in suggesting that President Bush did nothing about al-Qaida before 9/11.

    It is also unfortunate that some of the things Clarke says in his book about the good things the Clinton and Bush administrations did to avert terror attacks probably won't be spoken of in the hearings.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/24/123918.shtml
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    What you aren't reading in the mainstream news, straight from one of the 9/11 commisioners.

    9/11 Commissioner Lehman Rips Clarke Over Book Deal

    9/11 Commission member former Navy Secretary John Lehman ripped ex-terrorism czar Richard Clarke Wednesday afternoon for cashing in on this week's public hearings into America's worst disaster by using the forum to peddle his book.

    "When you and I first served together [in the Reagan administration] I had been a fan of yours," Lehman began when his turn to question Clarke came. "When you agreed to spend this much time with us, as you say, 15 hours, I was very hopeful."

    Of Clarke's private testimony before the Commission, Lehman said, "I thought you let the chips fall where they may. ... Certainly the greater weight of [your criticism of the U.S. war on terrorism] fell during the Clinton years."

    The 'Selling' of Clarke's Commission Appearance

    Then the former Navy secretary unloaded on Clarke with both barrels.

    "But now we have the book," Lehman noted. "I've published books before and I must must say that I am green with envy at the promotion department of your publisher."

    Continued Lehman: "I never got [Commission member] Jim Thompson to stand before 50 photographers reading your book. And I certainly never got '60 Minutes' to coordinate the showing of its interview with you with 15 network news broadcasts, the selling of the movie rights and your appearance here today."

    Clarke has 'Credibility Problem'

    Lehman said that when he started to read press accounts of Clarke's book, "I said to myself, this can't be the same Dick Clarke that testified before us, because all of the promotional material and all of the spin in the networks was that this is a roundly devastating attack - this book - on President Bush.

    "That's not what I heard in the [private Commission] interviews.

    "And I hope you're going to tell me, as you apologize to all the families for all of us who were involved in national security, that this tremendous difference - and not just in nuance but in the stories you choose to tell - is really the result of your editors and your promoters rather than your studied judgment."

    Lehman then blasted:

    [Your book] is so different from the whole thrust of your testimony to us. And similarly, when you add to it, the inconsistencies between what your promoters are putting out and what you yourself said as late as [last] August 5, you've got a real credibility problem."

    Lehman concluded:

    "Because of my real, genuine, longtime admiration for you, I hope you'll resolve that credibility problem because I'd hate to see you become totally shoved to one side during the presidential campaign as an active partisan selling a book."

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/24/153453.shtml
     
  3. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    Jim ,
    We can always count on you to seek out the truth . Thanks!
    :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  4. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    You're quite welcome.

    I just get pissed at this kind of crap. I'm all for freedom of speech but what this guys is doing goes far beyond that. With his contradictions it would appear he definitely lied. He's either lying with an agenda to sell books and/or assist the Kerry campaign, or he lied in the past when he defended the Bush administration. I think he's got an agenda, and he's a little disgruntled.

    Personally, I think he should be brought up on charges. Don't they have something similar in the military, where you can be charged for smearing a high ranking officer? (or have I watched A Few Good Men too many times?)

    Sadly, the 'moveon' crowd will take this guys testimony as gospel.
     
  5. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    It has been amazing how much visibility this guy has recieved . It seems that whatever channel you turned to his face was on it . Ann Coulter's editorial today is classic and addresses this subject as only she can . I would marry her today , no questions asked !
     
  6. SPIKESMYGOD
    Offline

    SPIKESMYGOD Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    175
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Ratings:
    +46
    For further proof of Clarke being a lying scumbag, let's look at his "vow under oath" yesterday that he "would NOT serve in a future Kerry administration." [Side Note: I guess he felt secure in making the oath since even HE knows that Bush has four more years coming to him. Bush's upcoming victory aside, I have to admit, what with his flip-flopping, Clarke would have made a great Secretary of State for Kerry. ]

    True, you can take certain oaths concerning future behavior- testimony at trial, allegiance to your country or a branch of the government/military- but his oath was a TOTAL mockery of the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    His "vow under oath" is NOT an enforceable oath. That's like vowing under oath to the 9/11 commission that he will never again eat a whole Dominos pizza. Now, if he hits his bong one night, gets the munchies, and is caught finishing off his last piece of pizza, would he be brought up on perjury charges? HELL, NO!

    It was an empty & disingenuous offering, just like his over-dramatic, faux apology to the victims of 9/11.
     
  7. spillmind
    Offline

    spillmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Palo Alto, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +13
    wow! look at the attempts to discredit a man who's seen FIRSTHAND the ACTUAL EVENTS leading up to, and post 9/11. i bet this guy was barely holding onto his job there the whole time! :rolleyes: (please) character assassinators, check your keyboards at the door!

    those of you who are pissed at 'free speech', mainly because it tells the TRUTH about your HERO, should keep in mind this guy VOTED FOR BUSH last time, and he is NOT PARTISAN.

    i find it hilarious that rice's name hasn't come up ONCE on this thread. anybody wonder WHY the admin REFUSED to have her testify.... i mean, what's to hide? she took it to the media, why not to the panel? i want ANYBODY to show me how her testifying would be unconstitutional. also, i guess the immediate 9/11 victim's families' protest to her not testifying by getting up and walking out was pretty damn UNPATRIOTIC as well, huh? :rolleyes:

    about the only thing i agree with is that it's pretty damn lame that this guy put out a book, and this serves as some free publicity. i think that's a pretty cheap shot. however, it doesn't make his testimony or accounts UNTRUE. the guy is under oath. i am of the assumption that he would be facing CRIMINAL CHARGES if he were actually LYING.

    i'm honestly wondering- what charges he potentially face?

    yeah really amazing, huh? i bet you hate it! i think you should be more concerned about what is good for america, not only WHAT'S GOOD FOR BUSH. :mad: ann coulter looks like a man without her 2 inches of make up. *shudder*

    oh??? do you have the winning lotto numbers for next week? :D i'll check you in late nov, that is if the non-elected chimp pulls some other desecration AGAIN on what's left of our 'democracy'.

    how would this not be considered perjury if he WAS lying?

    that's a lot of hatred you've got there, bub. too bad that sentiment wasn't echoed by the families of the 9/11 victims. in fact, he got STANDING OVATIONS from the families of the fallen when he took the blame like a MAN. what a bunch of anti-american FREAKING LIBS! :laugh: get real.

    FACT IS, THIS INTELLIGENCE FAILURE AND FAILURE TO STOP THE TERRORISTS HAPPENED UNDER BUSH'S WATCH. STOP TRYING TO SPIN THAT FACT OFF ON ANYONE ELSE. y'all look pretty silly doing that.
     
  8. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    Why are liberals dumb? At least those who spend a lot of time here. There are very few liberals I respect nowadays.

    "If it's ANTI-BUSH, it MUST be true"

    "If it's PRO-REPUBLICAN, it MUST be fake, spun, or otherwise invalid data"

    :rolleyes:

    :puke:
     
  9. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62

    :poke: hey darin :poke:

    :bs1:
     
  10. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    oooh....LOWER!!!

    :D
     

Share This Page