Will the real Dick Clarke please stand up

Search

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
ARE YOU sitting down? Another ex-government official who was fired or demoted by Bush has written a book that ... is critical of Bush! Eureka! The latest offering is Richard Clarke's new CBS-Viacom book, "Against All Enemies," which gets only a 35 on "rate a record" because the words don't make sense and you can't dance to it.

As long as we're investigating everything, how about investigating why some loser no one has ever heard of is getting so much press coverage for yet another "tell-all" book attacking the Bush administration?

When an FBI agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever."

"Larry King Live" and NBC's "Dateline" abruptly canceled their scheduled interviews with Aldrich. Aldrich was mentioned on fewer than a dozen TV shows during the entire year of his book's release -- many with headlines like this one on CNN: "Even Conservatives Back Away From Aldrich's Book." That's almost as much TV as Lewinsky mouthpiece William Ginsburg did before breakfast on an average day. (Let's take a moment here to imagine the indignity of being known as "Monica Lewinsky's mouthpiece.")

But a "tell-all" book that attacks the Bush administration gets the author interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" (two segments), CNN's "American Morning" and ABC's "Good Morning America" -– with an "analysis" by George Stephanopoulos, no less. In the first few days of its release, Clarke's book was hyped on more than 200 TV shows.

In contrast to Aldrich's book, which was vindicated with a whoop just a few years later when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, many of Clarke's allegations were disproved within days of the book's release. Clarke claims, for example, that in early 2001, when he told President Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice about al-Qaida, her "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before."

Sean Hannity has been playing a radio interview that Dr. Rice gave to David Newman on WJR in Detroit back in October 2000, in which she discusses al-Qaida in great detail. This was months before chair-warmer Clarke claims her "facial expression" indicated she had never heard of the terrorist organization.

But in deference to our liberal friends, let's leave aside the facts for now. A few months before Clarke was interpreting Dr. Rice's "facial expression," al-Qaida had bombed the USS Cole. Two years before that, al-Qaida bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In fact, al-Qaida or their allies had been responsible for a half dozen attacks on U.S. interests since Clinton had become president. (Paper-pusher Clarke was doing one heck of a job, wasn't he?) In the year 2000 alone, Lexis-Nexis lists 280 items mentioning al-Qaida.

By the end of 2000, anyone who read the paper had heard of al-Qaida. It is literally insane to imagine that Condoleezza Rice had not. For Pete's sake, even The New York Times knew about al-Qaida.

Rice had been a political science professor at Stanford University, a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, and a senior fellow of the Institute for International Studies. She had written three books and numerous articles on foreign policy. She worked for the first Bush administration in a variety of national security positions.

All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida."

Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us.

Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education? Or did he think Dr. Rice was cleaning the Old Executive Office Building at night before the president chose her -- not him -- to be national security adviser? If a Republican ever claimed the "facial expression" on Maxine Waters -- a woman whose face is no stranger to confusion or befuddlement -- left the "impression" that she didn't understand quantum physics, he'd be in prison for committing a hate crime.

As we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag -- you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?"
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
As a liberal, I'm offended that you'd call Clarke a liberal. When did he become a liberal...when he dared to criticize King Bush? Surely it wasn't worked he worked for Reagan and then Bush Sr.? This "some loser who no one has ever heard of" was one of the foremost counterterrorism experts in 4 Administrations, 3 of them Republican. The "tell all" book was not a book attacking the President, it's a book giving his accounts as he saw them. But to this President, King George, anyone who does not bow before him and kiss his feet is brutally attacking him and must bne taken down. I have never ever seen any person, let alone President, so unwilling to accept any type of criticism whatsoever. I think there are some psychological issues in play here. I think maybe he was never good enough for his daddy or something. Or his mommy didn't hug him enough.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
Clarke himself said he voted Republican in 2000.

Some liberal.

He just happens to be another insider who criticized Administration policies just like O'Neil, Thomas White, Gen. Shinsecki. remember when Shinsecki was pressed to give estimates in front of Congress as to how many troops would be required to occupy Iraq? He said in the hundreds of thousands and of course he was canned. And so was White for backing him up. Of course, they were right but this Administration does not tolerate dissent.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
335
Tokens
bblight . . .

thanks for the Ann Coulter cut and paste hatchet job . . .
Maybe you didn't want to reference it because most thinking conservatives (let alone liberals) dismiss her as a cartoonish hack.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
I saw this Ann Coulter piece last week on some right wing slander site. BB - not like you to cut and paste, and at least not mention the author.


wil.

PS. Anyone else think Annie has a crush on "Condi"?
1036253673.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,595
Tokens
Will Bush supporters accept any harsh critisism of Bush, or is it all thrown under the Bus as "more liberal trash talk" ?

I agree that Clark's timing is pretty important as far as his motives, but I agree with him on one front,

Bush used 9-11 as an excuse to finish his daddy's war. There are FAR more imminent threats, and when all of his original claims (wmd's, link to 9-11) fell to shit, he leaned on the liberation of Iraqi people. (those of which werent of the many innocnents killed from our countries weapons of mass destruction)

Does anyone really believe Bush's number one thought as far as this war was the iraqi people? I would hope nobody is that naive.



I just wish that some bush supporters woulc come out and say "ya know...we were wrong, there are no WMD's, no link to al quadea, no imminent threat...and Bush sold us the brooklyn bridge. Shame on him for bieng dishonest."

Saying such an honest thing does not make one a liberal, and kerry supporter, nor unamerican.

Blind patriotism, and unwavering rust of our leader can be VERY dangerous, and flies in the face of American ideals.
 

Is that a moonbat in my sites?
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
9,064
Tokens
Sorry that I didn't mention that I got this from Ann Coulter - I hang my head in shame!

Dick Clarke IS a liberal.
Just take a look at the way the NY times and CNN have deified him; they only do that with liberal Icons.
Only a liberal would sell a book and then stab someone else in the back to sell the book.

I won't say that Bush hasn't made any mistakes - he's made plenty. It's the way the left is so hypocritical about it - When Bill wagged the dog, it was OK, but when George goes to war, it's imperialistic this, and Big Oil company that, and conspiracies all over the place.

While I'm at it on the big liberal media - where are they when Chris Dodd says that Robert Byrd, once a Grand Supreme Wizzard of the KKK, could be an example for the nation to follow!
They were all over Trent Lott for the same thing.
The double standard is alive and doing well in the big 3 (abc, cbs, nbc), CNN, and the Times and it's ilk.

What really gets me about the liberals is their "I know better than you do" attitude.
Most liberals my age did everything they could to get out of serving in Vietnam, and have spent the time since then trying to make Vietnam vets look like derilicts and nut cases.
Many of them have college degrees thanks to mommy and daddy, but act as though they know what deprivation is all about.

Liberals sicken me!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,814
Messages
13,573,565
Members
100,877
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com