Clarke in '02: Bush Admin Began Counterterror Plan in Jan. '01 (Clarke Caught!Fox Exclusive!)

FoxNews ^ | 24 Mar 04 | Jim Angle

[xzins]

WASHINGTON

[MrB]

Their drowning. They know it. There are a couple of straws floating above their heads. One has "forgery" written on it. They grab for it....

[Quix]

Registered, a task you care to take on???

[GOPrincess]

Oh, so the members of the Administration are not permitted to defend themselves, using Clarke's own written and spoken words? Gosh, you sound like Tom Daschle. Guess they're just supposed to suck it up and take it, no matter how base the lies.

Troll alert...!

[PogySailor]

What's the half-life of that post? 5 minutes?

[hope]

"In fairness to Isikoff, he probably hasn't read the transcript or heard the words of Clarke. Once he does, let's see if it influences his opinion."

You gotta be kidding? Isikoff the reporter who sat on the Monica Lewisnky story...please...besides he should have not tried so hard at spinning this away from Clarke until he heard the tape..

[Defender2]

Thanks for your input. DU then does seem to be self defeating in their system.

[William McKinley]

Show me some character smearing. All I saw was plenty of evidence that Clarke's 60 Minute piece, as well as his book, contradicted what he had said in the past.

This is just more of the same.

Using someone's past statements, and pointing out their record, is not smearing them.

Except in the eyes of Democrats when someone is trying to hold them accountable for what they have said or done.

Stop acting like John Kerry's campaign team. It is not becoming.

[GOPrincess]

I don't think the bias of the mainstream media has ever been QUITE as blatant as it's been in the last few days...it's as though they completely don't care about even the pretense of objectivity anymore.

[JohnGalt]

'Truth' has no baring on this discussion.


Your 'innocence' is cute, but, as the saying goes, "as usual the cynics weren't cynical enough."

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

It's in his own words.

What a freaking mess!

Whaddya know! One of them actually CAN reason on a level moderately higher than (say) that of an aluminum toaster!

Will wonders never cease -- ?!? :)

[MeekOneGOP]

Clarke is TOAST!

Yep ! ...

[xzins]

Tell me you don't believe that the White House was caught off guard by Clarke's comments on Sunday? My goodness, God help us indeed.

With that logic, then you must also believe that CBS and Clarke are not caught by surprise by this transcript. Is that true?

Did CBS know there was a transcript on file that 100% contradicted the book?

If so, why didn't they simply report facts?

[Qwinn]

Heheheheh... yeah, I'd say so.

This is still on their front page, under a picture of Clarke with the words "Anger Management":

"March 24, 2004 · Anger is not necessarily born out of hatred, selfishness, and aggression. It is also born out of our better natures - out of love and compassion for those who are being hurt, out of despair and grief in the face of suffering that is unjust and unnecessary, or in Richard Clarke's case out of a sincere commitment to the country he believes his superiors have betrayed. By The Plaid Adder"

This is too freakin' funny.

Qwinn

[ApesForEvolution]

Every single lying, deceiving, America-hating RAT will have his/her day before it's all over...

[JohnGalt]

I agree, the government is full of liars.

[Defender2]

Yup!!!!:-)

[Wolfstar]

I heard Kerrey's comments this morning the same way you did, Lyford. He was complaining that the plan didn't include any military action, only non-military forms of pressure. In my opinion, Kerrey was being a partisan Democrat this morning (didn't have a chance to see any of the hearing yesterday, so don't have my own independent opinion on Kerrey's behavior then).

Why do I think Kerrey was showing his partisanship today? Because any pre-9/11 plan could only have focused on non-military actions. Look at all the whining over our invasion of Iraq even in the post-9/11 era. Does anyone seriously think either the Clinton or Bush administrations could have invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

I think it's time to be brutally honest with ourselves, as well as to demand it of our public officials. We, the American people, would not have agreed to big-time military options against terrorists in far-flung places prior to 9/11. As the jihadist movement gained strength in the 1970's, '80's and '90's, most of us paid little attention. While our government's response to each fresh outrage grew weaker and more impotent, we didn't demand change. We keep returning the Ted Kennedys, Robert Byrds, Jim Jeffords, and others of that ilk to power in the senate.

We elected Richard Nixon, then allowed an unelected member of the House of Representatives to replace him. We followed up by electing the pathetic Jimmy Carter. We kept the corrupt Leftist Dems in power in the Senate and House right up to 1994. We tried to change course with the election of Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush. But even the great President Reagan made the mistake of turning tail in Lebanon after the Marine barracks were destroyed. Why? Because he knew we, the American people, would support our going to war with the terrorists in the Middle East.

In 1992, we gave up on the Reagan revolution and sent the first 60's radical to the White House in Bill Clinton. We came within a hare's breath of electing Clinton's very peculiar VP, and may well be poised to elect an even worse 60's radical this November in the person of John Kerry.

Here in California, we've known since 2000, when a plot to bomb LAX was foiled, not by any U.S. government action, but by an alert Canadian border guard, that our state is under grave threat from terrorists. Yet we keep electing one of the most Marxist, weak and, frankly, stupid legislatures in the nation. Not content with their nonsense, we also continually send two Leftists empty skirts to the senate in the persons of Feinstein and Boxer. (Boxer is likely to be re-elected this Nov.) We tolerate haters like Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, etc., representing us in the House (also likely to be re-elected).

Heck, narrowing it down even to those of us who profess to be on the right side of the political spectrum — even here among people who are supposedly the strongest on national defense — we have a vocal minority who seem incapable of tearing themselves away from their need to "send a message" via a vote for a minority party or by not voting at all.

We, the American public, need to sober up (metaphorically speaking) and take our own security seriously — and reflect our seriousness in our votes, in what we'll tolerate from the media, and so on.

[DonnerT]

Somebody needs to put together a "Leftist Reporter Enemy" deck of cards. Nahhh,,,, wouldn't work. Not enough cards in a deck.

[William McKinley]

"'Truth' has no baring on this discussion."

I don't think you have any idea of how transparent and foolish you are coming across.

But there is a rule of thumb- when your enemy is digging a hole, don't take away his shovel. So by all means, continue as you were.

[GOPrincess]

So the devious White House has been planning to torpedo Clarke for months... He is an innocent, put-upon lamb with no ulterior motives who is being evilly smeared by the Bush Administration, who are lacking in ethics and devious, the second coming of Clinton & Co.

Okay...sure. Whatever you say. Uh-huh. Okey-dokey. You bet.

(For those that need it, /sarcasm off now...)