[FreedominAmerica]

I'm new here. I'm a little puzzled. Isn't Clarke a Republican who worked mostly for Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes?

If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

Please don't flame me. I'm trying to understand.

[Coop]

If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

No. It takes a village to raise a liar. :-)

[maica]

I'm new here. I'm a little puzzled. Isn't Clarke a Republican who worked mostly for Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes?

If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

Please don't flame me. I'm trying to understand.
******


Clarke may have been a Republican in the past.
He was a career diplomat starting in 1973 - retired with 30 years in civil service. He was not a poitical appointee, who had to get approval from the senate, and who could be removed by the admin who appointed him.

If you stick around FR for a little while you will read numerous examples of leftist lying attacks. The fact that Clarke is lying, is teaching a course with Randall Beers 9Kerry's foreigh policy advisor), and is defending the Clinton administration, does not mean that all liberals are liars. The two ideas are just simultaneously correct.

[mathluv]

I believe he was a holdover from the clintoon admin.

[Indy Pendance]

Clarke's claims are based on half truths and hysteria. Just because someone states they are 'Republican' really doesn't mean they are. It's their record, and clearly Clarke is a liberal. Notice how Clinton was never brought up in the interview, or the facts that terrorism happened during his administration, BTW, the Clinton Administration did nothing to stop terrorists, and had at least THREE opportunities where they could have gotten bin Laden. The media would like to rewrite history, claiming all the bad things that have happened from 9/11 onward are a direct result of the Bush Administration alone, conveniently forgetting all the attacks which happened during the Clinton Administration.

Here

and here

PS, welcome aboard!

[RedWing9]

I'm new here.

Lame excuse...

Isn't Clarke a Republican who worked mostly for Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes?

Well, he spent 8 years in the Clinton admin... Kinda makes you think, eh?

[an amused spectator]

I'm new here. I'm a little puzzled. Isn't Clarke a Republican who worked mostly for Republican administrations, including Reagan and both Bushes?

Richard Clarke got a book deal for his "revelations". "Book deals" are also a form of payoff commonly used by the liberal establishment for favors from their friends. Clarke's book is being promoted by CBS (via the 60 Minutes vehicle) and is published by Simon & Schuster. CBS and Simon & Schuster are both owned by Viacom, so what you're witnessing is one big commercial for a Viacom property, and an undeclared political donation to the Kerry campaign.

If Clarke is a liar, how does that make liberals liars? Isn't Clarke alone responsible for his statements?

Well, if Clarke is getting paid cash to spread lies for the benefit of the liberal establishment's candidate, I guess that DOES make liberals liars.

BTW, it's common courtesy to reply to those who respond to your queries around here (Zulu excepted).