Done and Done on Fox'N Friends.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
To: ReleaseTheHounds
bump
152 posted on
03/22/2004 6:50:56 AM PST by
jonno
(We are NOT a democracy - though we are democratic. We ARE a constitutional republic.)
To: ReleaseTheHounds
The media lib WHORES got what they wanted from Clarke! Ijaz will never see his version on the national tube! GOSH I HATE THOSE CLYMERS! Anyway, nothing to see here, move along the whores have their ammo and will use it to the hilt!! What W needs to do is IMMEDIATELY go on the offensive against Clarke...not tomorrow, but NOW!! Notice how ketchup boy immediately, like in the next day or the next hour, countattacks W's camp accusations! THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT!!
To: ReleaseTheHounds
At least Imus this morning was slamming Clarke as an opportunist shilling a book.
159 posted on
03/22/2004 7:08:57 AM PST by
finnman69
(cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
To: ReleaseTheHounds
Classic quote fo the AM. Don Imus said Clarke's publisher Simon & Schuster were...damn I can't remember the word...'terrorists'? possibly for allowint Clarke to publish this book.
165 posted on
03/22/2004 7:17:50 AM PST by
finnman69
(cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
To: ReleaseTheHounds
Drudge: The Sunday Times has established that after a fierce internal row about the sincerity of the offer, the White House responded by sending Richard Clarke, Clinton's most senior counterterrorism adviser, to meet the rulers of the United Arab Emirates. They denied there was any such offer. Ijaz, however, maintained that the White House had thereby destroyed the deal, which was to have been arranged only through unofficial channels. Ijaz said that weeks later on a return trip to the Gulf he was taken on a late-night ride into the desert by his contact who told him that Clarke's front-door approach had upset a delicate internal balance and blown the deal. "Your government has missed a major opportunity," he recalls being told.
171 posted on
03/22/2004 7:38:32 AM PST by
m1-lightning
(God, Guns, and Country!)
To: ReleaseTheHounds
I liked Dick Clarke when he hosted American Bandstand
(tee hee)
175 posted on
03/22/2004 7:46:23 AM PST by
BSunday
To: ReleaseTheHounds
You wanna hear about a hellish situation ? I was at the navy hosptital last night with my son (double ear infection plus strep throat) and the two tv's in the waiting room were tuned to 60 minutes featuring Clarke and AMC showing Thelma and Louise..AAAAAAAAGH!!!
182 posted on
03/22/2004 7:58:58 AM PST by
BSunday
To: ReleaseTheHounds; All
OH MAN I just hear on FR just now
Did he call Richard Clarke a B****
ALRIGHT cool Rack Mozziz Iziz
187 posted on
03/22/2004 8:05:54 AM PST by
SevenofNine
("Not everybody , in it, for truth, justice, and the American way,"=Det Lennie Briscoe)
To: ReleaseTheHounds
I saw it. He was mad enough to rip his lung out.
188 posted on
03/22/2004 8:07:22 AM PST by
bmwcyle
(<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
To: ReleaseTheHounds
I have been posting this theory for a week and thought that no one was paying attention, that is until Howlin asked me to post it on another thread.
My theory on Clarke is that he could not publish or otherwise publicly distribute any truth about the classified war on terror without being arrested. What he can publish are lies and distortions. This was a technique used often by the Clinton administration during the impeachment investigation because the truth was sealed behind a secrecy order. In this case the administration would be unable to publicly refute the charges, just as Star and his aides were forbidden to refute the democrat charges under the Clinton administration. The only place that the administration can refute the charges is before the committe, which they have declined to do, for fear of having their own words twisted against them. Even if the Bush administration officials did refute the Democrat claims, it would not make the press.
201 posted on
03/22/2004 9:06:11 AM PST by
Eva
To: ReleaseTheHounds; Timesink; *CCRM; governsleastgovernsbest; martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; ...
202 posted on
03/22/2004 9:26:07 AM PST by
an amused spectator
(John Kerry: Future Leader Of The Traffic Citation On Terror)
To: ReleaseTheHounds
Folks, fear not! Richard Clarke, like Paul O'Neil is dead on arrival! Oh, his book may do well because the DNC will make certain it gets scooped up by the retard group, but no one of any realistic consequence will read a word. Any objective American with half a brain knows that Bill Clinton and the Democrat "traitor" Party were directly responsible for allowing 911 to occur! Enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, Mr. Clarke!
To: ReleaseTheHounds
Folks, fear not! Richard Clarke, like Paul O'Neil is dead on arrival! Oh, his book may do well because the DNC will make certain it gets scooped up by the retard group, but no one of any realistic consequence will read a word. Any objective American with half a brain knows that Bill Clinton and the Democrat "traitor" Party were directly responsible for allowing 911 to occur! Enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, Mr. Clarke!
To: ReleaseTheHounds
Some said Clarke's just looking to sell more copies of his book and/or possibly hoping for a job with Kerry or a future Democratic president.
"He probably thinks that the Democrats have a chance this time and so he's trying to suck around for another job," Alexander Haig (search), former secretary of state under President Reagan, told Fox News on Monday.
"This is an outrage to claim President Bush is responsible for nine years of total incompetence in confronting international terrorism that he [Clarke] was a part of," especially when "the Clinton administration did nothing but warn, warn, warn and throw a few rockets" at terrorists.
Bush, however, "has a firm grasp on the global threat that is confronting the United States, the free world and nations that believe in the rule of law," Haig continued
210 posted on
03/22/2004 9:41:40 AM PST by
Enduring Freedom
(Guess How We Ended Japanese Kamikaze Attacks? It's State-Sponsored, Stupid.)
To: All
not sure if this is the whole story, but....
A second offer to get Bin Laden came unofficially from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American millionaire who was a donor to Clinton's election campaign in 1996. On July 6, 2000, he visited John Podesta, then the president's chief of staff, to say that intelligence officers from a Gulf state were offering to help to extract Bin Laden.
Details of the meeting are confirmed in an exchange of e-mails between the White House and Ijaz, which have been seen by The Sunday Times. According to Ijaz, the offer involved setting up an Islamic relief fund to aid Afghanistan in return for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden to the Gulf state. America could then extract Bin Laden from there.
The Sunday Times has established that after a fierce internal row about the sincerity of the offer, the White House responded by sending Richard Clarke, Clinton's most senior counterterrorism adviser, to meet the rulers of the United Arab Emirates. They denied there was any such offer. Ijaz, however, maintained that the White House had thereby destroyed the deal, which was to have been arranged only through unofficial channels. Ijaz said that weeks later on a return trip to the Gulf he was taken on a late-night ride into the desert by his contact who told him that Clarke's front-door approach had upset a delicate internal balance and blown the deal. "Your government has missed a major opportunity," he recalls being told.
To: StarFan; Dutchy; Timesink; Gracey; Alamo-Girl; RottiBiz; bamabaseballmom; FoxGirl; Mr. Bob; ...
236 posted on
03/22/2004 10:56:56 AM PST by
nutmeg
(Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John F’in al-Qerry)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson