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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 12:41pm

Don't you guys listen or read anything other than Bush propaganda?

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 1:53pm
No, what are you talking about?? When she testified with them for 4 hours she was NOT under oath! Check your facts!!!!!! They have agreed today that she will testify under oath after stonewalling for many days. After lots of political pressure they finally agreed to do the right thing. Let her testify and then let the American public decide who is telling the truth.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 4:18pm
Sure I read that. That's what put me of the mind that he was angling for a job instead of just trying to pad his bank account. Russert never asked if he would work for government again. He offered that nugget out of the blue, and as a student of human nature, who knows when someone protests, "It's not about the money," it almost always is, and when someone says, "I'm not after... (the sex, the money, the power, the job, or whatever), that's exactly what they're after.

In Clark's case, when I heard that statement come out of his mouth, everything clicked, and questions that had been bothering, were answered. That's the only motivation that makes any sense for what he's doing. He's on record all over the place for trashing Clinton's handling of terrorism, so why didn't he give the business to both administrations in his book? That wasn't financial motivation, that was positioning, and while he did say that he wouldn't accept a job in Kerry's administration, he also said, "As obsessed as I was with going after al-Qaeda, I felt I had to get out of the terrorism business because I couldn't work for an administration that was treating it in such an unimportant way."

I'm willing to bet that sometime during the campaign, he will find Kerry's approach to terrorism praiseworthy, and if, God forbid, Kerry were elected, and he sent Beers to make the case to his good friend that no one had the experience and knowledge that he did, and he was the best man for the job, Clark's "noble sense of duty" would prevail and he would be persuaded to return to the White House--for the good of the country, you know.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 12:04pm


Wow! You Bush supporters/Clarke haters really have your blinders on, don't you? Even when presented with verbatim quotes from Clarke (who is retirement age) that he will "never" return to politics nor endorse Kerry, you all continue to insist that, somehow, "Yes, he will!!" Give me a break! You must have a lot of time on your hands if you're sitting around dreaming up scenerios such as the one above.

Do you think it's possible, just for one second, to conceive of the notion that Clarke (the most qualified person in America to say what he's saying) could have no other motive than sheer horror and outrage at the unprecedented arrogance and abuses of power within the current administration?

If not, then I guess I underestimated how bitter, cynical, brainwashed, and just plain mean conservatives can be.

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 1:22pm
Clarke voted for Al Gore? According to this article in a San Diego newspaper, he voted Republican in 2000:

...Clarke shook off Thompson's attack on his credibility regarding the 2002 White House briefing. "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he said. "I've done it for several presidents."

Later he said his criticism had nothing to do with politics. "I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one," he said, adding that he voted Republican in the 2000 election....



http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20040324-1710-sept11commission.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 2:00pm
It is possible that he voted "Republican" in the 2000 election but not in the Presidential election.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 2:12pm
If Clark had no other motive, he wouldn't have gone to such lengths as he has to revise his comments about the Clinton administration or included incidents and conversations that never happened. He would also have based more of his book on facts instead of his faulty perceptions of people and their motivations.

What makes you think the guy is ready to retire? Another poster said that he's now claiming that he has to keep more of the profits of the book so that he'll be able to keep a roof over his head and food on the table because some nameless 'they' have sworn he'll never get another job in Washington.

Renee

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 2:14pm
So you are saying most people DON'T base their voting party on the FEDERAL LEVEL?

I think you are wrong, and if the paper "gave an exact quote", you wouldn't believe it anyway siting, "it's a biased paper"!!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 2:31pm
That was in the primaries, so he could vote for the Republican nominee. He has only ever made donations to Dems and in an interview, he said that he voted for Gore in '00. Sounds a lot like his friend Beers who also worked in the Bush White House but is a partisan Democrat advising Kerry.

These two have virtually insured that furture administations will not be holding over staff from administrations of the other party which will make transitions which are difficult enough, evenmoreso, especially in areas of foreign policy and national security which were seen as too important to be vacant for any time, or urgent to wait until someone new was able to get up to speed on what was going on.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 2:43pm

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER


Wednesday, March 31, 2004 · Last updated 12:04 p.m. PT


Clarke asks anti-Bush group to pull TV ads


By TED BRIDIS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


WASHINGTON -- President Bush's former counterterrorism adviser objected Wednesday to the use of his name and critical comments about Bush in a new broadcast advertisement from a political group supporting Democratic candidate John Kerry.


Richard Clarke said he instructed his lawyer to ask the MoveOn.org Voter Fund to stop broadcasting the ad, which Clarke said was created without his knowledge or permission. The group said it wouldn't pull the ad, and one outside legal expert said the ad was clearly permissible under U.S. copyright laws.


"I just don't want to be used," Clarke told The Associated Press. "I don't want to be part of what looks like a political TV ad. I'm trying hard to make this not a partisan thing but a discussion of how we stop terrorism from happening in the future, keep this on a policy issue. I don't want this to become any more emotional or personal than it has already."


The campaigns director for MoveOn, Eli Pariser, said Clarke's comments were presented fairly and accurately but acknowledged it didn't speak with Clarke about the spot.


"This is a public statement that Clarke had made," Pariser said. "We think it's important to get what Clarke has to say out there."


One copyright expert said Clarke had little legal recourse under copyright statutes protecting the publicity rights of celebrities or public figures.


"It's very difficult to imagine any claim that a court would take seriously in this context," said Susan Crawford, an assistant professor at Yeshiva University's Cardoza Law School in New York. "I'm surprised he's doing this. No one would assume that Richard Clarke encouraged them to do this."(me: What world does SHE live in?