CLARKE'S GAIN, OUR PAIN

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
CLARKE'S GAIN, OUR PAIN
32
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 8:22am
Clarke is an opportunist, and the Democratic Party has bought into it foot, line, and sinker for no other reason than to moronically try and blame Bush for 9/11.

March 28, 2004 -- A group of New York families of 9/11 victims came out swinging against Richard Clarke yesterday, accusing the former White House anti-terror chief of cashing in on the tragedy with his explosive book.

In a scathing open letter, the furious families also ripped Clarke for releasing the controversial tome to coincide with his appearance before the 9/11 commission on Wednesday.

"It was very disturbing to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 commission," they said in their emotional "Open Letter to America."

FULL STORY:

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/17683.htm

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 8:53am

36 family members complain. Can you give us the #'s for those that appreciate the facts?


See post 6257.62


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=6257.61


Article at this post.........


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/


Following a quote by your's truly from post 6257.63


>"When I heard Clarke say, on Meet the Press,

 


Photobucket&nbs

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 9:06am
"Facts"? What "Facts"?. Clarke can't even get straight who he voted for in 2000. I can't believe how much people are buying into this guy. UNbelievable.

He and O'Neill are couning the cash their books are bringing in on the ignorance of the left.

CONDI FOR PRESIDENT!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 11:07am
Ah..yes...meanwhile the Bush administration refuses to allow Condi to testify under oath(in private or public). Instead, they want to leak bits and pieces of memos and emails that appear to support the their theory. As Clarke says, declassify ALL of the info so we can determine who is telling the truth. Of course, Bush administration will never agree to that because the American people would finally know the truth!
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 1:12pm

Wow, well I am certainly seeing one person on this board living in a fog, but it isn't us.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 2:04pm
<>

It is a wonder!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2003
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 3:28pm
First of all, it's "HOOK, line, and sinker," not foot. Furthermore, Democrats support Clarke not because they've "bought in" to what he has to say, but because they've known it to be true all along. Clarke is simply articulating what we have suspected along - that Bush ignored warnings about an imminent attack while spending 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation in Crawford, that he squandered a rare moment of world support after 9/11, and that he used the terrorist attacks as an excuse to carry out the preconceived war in Irag.

The best part is that Clarke is probably the most qualified person in America to say what he is saying. Even better, he is not a hot-head like so many conservatives. He just tells it like it is, calmly and with authority.

Conservatives are just angry because they've finally been busted and people are catching on to their manipulations.

I for one, will be thrilled when the bullies leave office and we have a crack at cleaning up the mess they've created over the last 4 years.

Don't bother sending an angry, hot-headed response. You won't change my mind.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 8:03am
<>

Just think, if Bush had been able to restrain himself instead of becomming an attack dog this whole issue would have disappeard from the news.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 11:34am
<>

Certainly not. He's an angry bitter liberal beurocrat who will spin any way he perceives to be in his best interest.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 11:51am
<>

What are you going on about? She testified in private for 4 hours and was willing to give them more time. And despite what you want to believe it is a separation of powers issue. No presidential advisor has ever testified before Congress on policy matters, only when they were investigating criminal activity.

In fact, in '99, Clark refused to testify before Congress and cited the exact same reasons that Condi has.

http://www.drudgereport.com/rc1.htm





Edited 3/30/2004 1:11 pm ET ET by wrhen

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 11:51am
<>

Sunday didn't he say he voted for Gore, or did I miss something?

<>

The polls seem to be suggesting they're not, unless, of course, they are already Bush haters. Bush's lead in the polls has actually increased since Clark's interview.

The thing with Clark is that he's all spin, as he has already testified to explain away his contradictions.

He spun the story for the Clinton administration & said terrorism was a top priority; then he spun for Bush & said that Clinton didn't do anything but that in the Bush administration terrorism was a top priority, and now he's spinning for Kerry in the hopes of gettting Tom Ridge's job in a Kerry administration, so he says that Bush didn't do anything.

I think he is a very efficient beurocrat and is good in his job, by most accounts, but is willing to say whatever is expedient to further his career. Had Condi given him the job he wanted, there would be no book, and he would be praising her and the administration. I think he loved his job and position, and sees a Kerry presidency as another chance, allbeit a long shot, to get back into the White House, so he's spinning his little heart out.

Renee

Pages