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
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 2:56pm

I watched Meet the Press saw & heard it come out of his mouth.


The SD paper has it wrong. What can I say?

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 3:09pm
It would seem that Clark isn't politically motivated, as many have claimed.

C

March 31, 2004

Clarke Asks Anti - Bush Group to Pull TV Ads

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:33 p.m. ET

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

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Terrorism-Adviser.html

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 3:49pm
So??? Like I said in another post- Clarke is trying to sell his book by playing both sides of the fence. He has nothing to lose by doing it, only to gain.
Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 3:50pm
You don't know that. Clarke could have said BOTH things. That's the thing with fabricators, sometimes they forget where they left off.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 3:56pm
It doesn't surprise me that Clarke's accusations aren't politically motivated. One simply can't serve so may VASTLY different administrations with honor and distinction if one is soley motivated by political affiliation.

I believe that Clarke is truly disturbed by what he has seen in this administration and, as someone who has dedicated 30 years of public service to keeping us safe, feels an obligation to point out problematic policies, among ALL the most recent administrations, that led to the attacks and perpetuate Islamic hatred against the United States.

The problem is that most of America IS so partisan these days. In fact, recent studies have shown that America is more polarized now than at any other time in American history.

Could it be that Americans, so used to being on opposing political sides, are failing to recognize that, regardless of one's political affiliation, some policies stand the test of time while others go sour?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 4:01pm
Then the honorable thing would have been for him to resign when he became so disillusioned, instead of brown nosing Condi for a better position, moving to another position when he didn't get it, and eventually fawning all over Bush in his resignation letter.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 4:35pm
I think I can clear this up...Hope Yen at the Associated Press got it wrong in the article you posted. Here's what Clarke really said, from the transcript:

CLARKE: Let me talk about partisanship here, since you raise it. I've been accused of being a member of John Kerry's campaign team several times this week, including by the White House. So let's just lay that one to bed. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign. Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000. And I asked for a Republican ballot.

Here's the article but good luck finding it as this is a transcript of the entire day's testimony. Clarke said this in response to Commissioner Lehman, if that helps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html

He voted as a Republican in the Virginia PRIMARY in 2000 (my bet is he voted for McCain) but in the actual Presidential election, he voted for Gore, and stated so on Meet the Press last week.

The last thing we need on this already confusing subject is lazy reporting. I hope they ran a correction.

���edited to add:

I just noticed that whren already pointed this out to the board, although no one seemed to have noticed. Mark the time and date....whren & I agree on a fact!




Edited 3/31/2004 5:41 pm ET ET by metrochick

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 5:31pm
Thanks for sorting out the info.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 5:51pm
Please buy a clue. Please stop watching Faux News and Rush! There's plenty of blame to go around for 9/11. The blame goes back to Daddy Bush, Clinton, and Baby Bush! Please remember President Bush was in office on September 22, 2001. Dick Clarke is just telling the truth about The Shrub and his merry gang of liars! They dropped the ball on terrorism! Does anyone remember Watergate! Can we please impeach this fool?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 7:02pm


<