Anyone watch Fox this am? - Clarke and 9/11

[winston churchi]

I found it interesting. A woman whose son was one of the heroic fireman that lost their life on that day while trying to save others...shame on me for forgetting her name!

She was to bring shame to Clarkes name and how he is using the tragic events to promote his tell all book (the national enquirer book version by Clarke)
Everytime this man speaks, he blames Bush more and more for the events on 9/11 while praising Clinton (I still don't what Clinton did that was great). What I loved is she said that Bush is being bashed by this man because he had eight mos. to avoid 9/11 while Clinton had eight years!
Apparently a group of surviving parents and other relatives had sent this letter to the disgraced Clarke.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

If you watch the video of the 9/11 commission where clarke is testifying, there are multiple parts where the families applaud what he says, so I'm guessing that most families approve of the fact that Clarke revealed everything to the public, something they criticize the others of not doing.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
the fact that Clarke revealed everything to the public, something they criticize the others of not doing.

Now if we could only get him to tell the truth...

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
If you watch the video of the 9/11 commission where clarke is testifying, there are multiple parts where the families applaud what he says, so I'm guessing that most families approve of the fact that Clarke revealed everything to the public, something they criticize the others of not doing.

I find that disgracefull.

I agree with the woman on Fox this morning, this man is out to make a buck at the expense of thousands of deceased. He is hell bent on getting back at Bush and using the tragic event of 9/11...oh and yes lets not forget the tell all book.

The tell all book.

I don't know anything about his tell all book but does anyone know if he is donating the profits of this book to assist those victoms of 9/11?

 

[Aquarian]

Originally posted by winston churchi
does anyone know if he is donating the profits of this book to assist those victoms of 9/11?

He's donating at least some of the profits, the amount was not specified in the article but it did make it clear he would also keep some profits. After all, he's not likely to be working in dc ever again...

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
If you watch the video of the 9/11 commission where clarke is testifying, there are multiple parts where the families applaud what he says, so I'm guessing that most families approve of the fact that Clarke revealed everything to the public, something they criticize the others of not doing.

Most families?

9/11 Families Livid at Clarke's 'Profiteering'

Thirty-two family members of 9/11 victims have signed a blistering open letter to former terrorism czar Richard Clarke, accusing him of "profiteering" from the 9/11 tragedy by writing a book and acting to "divide America" with his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

"The notion of profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us," the 9/11 familles wrote in a letter published in Sunday's New York Post.

"We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 Commission could be used for political gain, especially now, with the presidential election less than eight months away."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/28/112348.shtml

 

[winston churchi]

And apparently any statement he makes he finalizes it with
'its in the book' - another words you need to go out and spend the thirty dollars of your hard earned money to find out something he should be telling the public in the first place - if it was all true.
However, instead he chooses to write a book about it and if you want to find out his version of the truth while he was working under Bush you have to buy his version of the truth.
Does that not speak volumes to people out there?

To me , that is like witnessing a horrible crime and instead of coming out about it straight away and sorting it out then and there, you wait two and a half years - then name bash - then write a book and tell everyone if they want to know more about the crime and how it happened, you need to buy the book.

What is this country coming to?

As for him donating a spare of the profits, I would love to know exactly how much. I am sure his pockets will be quite full after his tell all book is out in the bookstores.

I gather you would all know, I certainly would turn a nose up at it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

now why isn't anyone raising hell about any of the OTHER books that have gone out from people after 9/11. like guliani or bush. They use 9/11 as well, do they not?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Now if we could only get him to tell the truth...

He testified under oath. Condi Rice refuses to do so. Perhaps she's the one who's worried about purjuring herself.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
He testified under oath.

Ok, so that only means he perjured himself.

Condi Rice refuses to do so.

Yes, as the white house lawyers have advised her, as they did with Richard Clarke back in 1999. I guess it was ok for him to do so though?

She's been very open with the media about the situation. She HAS met with the commission, she just didn't do it in public. She has even requested another meeting.

Perhaps she's the one who's worried about purjuring herself.

Perhaps, but she's not the one trying to sell a book at the same time. She doesn't need to lie to sell her product.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
He testified under oath. Condi Rice refuses to do so. Perhaps she's the one who's worried about purjuring herself.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it!

White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

WASHINGTON - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) will be allowed to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an administration official said Tuesday.

The official said the decision is conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent, said the official speaking on condition of anonymity. It appeared the administration already had such assurances verbally in private and is confident it will get them in writing.

White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales has sent a letter to the commission stating that Rice is prepared to testify publicly as long as the administration receives assurances from the panel that this is not precedent setting, the official said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040330/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission

 

[MtnBiker]

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
now why isn't anyone raising hell about any of the OTHER books that have gone out from people after 9/11. like guliani or bush. They use 9/11 as well, do they not?

Yes but remember Guliani is considered a hero by many - MANY - especially New Yorkers where 9/11 was hit hardest....they are two men that cannot be compared.
Besides, I am gathering that Clarkes book is nothing more than tattle taling....

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
He testified under oath. Condi Rice refuses to do so. Perhaps she's the one who's worried about purjuring herself.

Obviously she wasnt too worried about purjury. It was more a constitutional issue. The commission is a legislative investigation and the seperation of powers protects the executive branch from legislative investigations so they executive branch wont lose its full power to check congress.