**Richard Clarke Takes Position as ABC News Consultant**

ABC News | March 25, 2004

[Just mythoughts]

"Look, I'll just say it, because it probably is not going to be used against Clarke anyway."


This is just great. Clarke is a freaking pervert put in charge of "counter-terrorism. Well maybe no one else will hold it against him but this is insanity.

So next question is who is the blackmailer?????

[maica]

http://billmon.org/archives/001239.html

For anyone whose eyes still work after a week of non-stop reading (live threads are so tempting), this link goes to an interesting anti-Bush blog thread that started March 20 --- BEFORE the 60 minutes interview. This blogger already knew which excerpts from Clarke's book were going to be used by Stahl.

[maica]

Is Rand Beers married?

[Pukin Dog]

A better question would be: Who isnt?

[StAnDeliver]

Well, his 15 minutes of fame will be extended to 20 minutes!

Subsequently extended to 20 years at hard labor...

[Mitchell]

Your headline: **Richard Clarke Takes Position as ABC News Consultant**

You made up the headline, as well as the whole story that ABC had just hired him (presumably based on his recent accusations). You posted no link or other documentation.

It's been pointed out to you several times (#73, #83, #91) that Clarke has been an ABC News consultant since at least August.

The story is false, and it certainly isn't "Breaking News".

You can start a rumor, and the rumor may even get legs, but it will come back to bite the Bush conservatives when people observe how quickly people are ready to believe any random rumor about Clarke in the absence of any evidence at all.

This has been at or near the top of the Breaking News sidebar for a while now. It's an embarrassment to FR.

[BluH2o]

Clarke is gay, and gays don't get prime security jobs in Washington.

Clarke is gay? Could be, but the fact he's not married doesn't make the man gay. Over the years I've known several men, for one reason or the other didn't get around to marriage. Most of these men are getting more than their fair share, married guys envy them.

[Jeff Head]

I have not blamed Bush...I have simply said that I did not agree with some of his policies. But he is certainly a part of those policies for whatever reason...and I realize the nature of the political dilema that his is in.

What else could he do? In several of these other areas he could stand resolutely as he has done on Iraq. He would find great strength in his support on those issues...and besides, He that fights for us is much greater than those who fight against us.

Having said that, I felt I did put the blame in my prior post squarely where it belongs...with many of the leaders and members of the Republican majority...and by extension to we Americans who vote them in...the same place you are indicating.

So we agree on that, despite the fact that I still disagree with the policies mentioned. Some of those policies are things that Clinton could not get passed when he was in office.

I believe many, many "freepers" understand this. They are just frustrated because they do not necessarily take the view that your mention, they fight the slide on both sides of the aisle...and yet the outcome is still the same.

I do thank God that Bush rather than Gore is in office...that does not stop me from seeing and commenting on the issues I disagree with that are not in keeping with the most basic reasoning for that thanks.

My entire point was that we face a very dangerous situation and it is the result of enmeies abroad and domestic and the (witting or unwitting) support they are getting from the policies and attitudes that exist within our society...attitudes that quite frankly have nothing to do with the underlying foundations of our Republic and the moral principles it rests upon. Unfortunatley, that level of damaging support extends right down to the voting ranks.

I still believe that we can overcome it though and turn things around. It will take faith, commitment, courage, action and involvement. We have the same God whom our founders put their trust in in the hour of their need still supporting the right. He always will.

2 Chron 7:14

Jeff

[Just mythoughts]

"A better question would be: Who isnt?"


This is the perfect JFKerry two sides of the issue scenario.

Now considering the kind of book Clarke wrote, and who stands to benefit from it, and who had the intel that he was a pervert, that was allowed to maintain his security clearance, seems to point to the Clintons.

[Pukin Dog]

I would not be so careless as to make that accusation based only on the fact that Clarke is not married. I've been making hints about this for days here, hoping someone else would pick up on it. What needs to happen, is for someone to ask Clarke under oath (which is coming) just why he DIDNT get the job he wanted.

[BlessedByLiberty]

Thanks for the ping! At least we now know how much it costs to buy this man's soul, don't we?

[Mitchell]

Ping.

[Jeff Head]

She did not make the story up...she just posted what she had seen on TV. IN such a case there would be no links.

It has taken on its own life from there and there are some links within the thread that indicate it may well be true.

Time will tell whether he has actually been hired as a consultant...but I do not doubt that the line on the TV came across as she indicated.

So, post some factual data that indicates it is not so. Howlin asked if anyone else had seen it in her first post, and then in post 10 indicated that she had not found any formal announcment.

I believe you can give a factual refutation without accusing her of making things up.

[BlessedByLiberty]

Thanks for the ping! At least we now know how much it costs to buy this man's soul, don't we?

[Pukin Dog]

Read this for how Clarke and other undesirables got jobs in Washington

[Ciexyz]

ABC = maggots.

[Jeff Head]

Most of these men are getting more than their fair share, married guys envy them<.i><

Honorable married men don't envy them in the least. Sin is never good, irrespetive of how much fun it may seem.

Just my opinion and thoughts in response to your post. No offense intended.

[js1138]

Your posting style makes it impossible to distinguish between what you are saying and what you are responding to. Learn to use italics, or some typographical stype that makes your argument clear.

It really makes no difference when Clarke became a consultant to ABC. The fact is that CBS, NBC and ABC are in bed with the democrats and are promoting Clarke to defeat Bush.

Of course it is arguable that Fox took a great deal of visible joy at skewering Clarke.

The networks should be competing to be the first with the truth, but in the absence of honesty, at least Fox provides balance.

[Mitchell]

Sorry - I didn't mean to say that Howlin was lying, but that she had jumped to a conclusion.

Clarke is a consultant to ABC News. He has been since at least August. Two links were posted earlier (#73 and #83) showing this.

Howlin's point was that ABC had hired him now as a result of his recent accusations. This is not true.

And it certainly isn't Breaking News now that he was hired in August or earlier.

[Grampa Dave]

"For anyone whose eyes still work after a week of non-stop reading (live threads are so tempting), this link goes to an interesting anti-Bush blog thread that started March 20 --- BEFORE the 60 minutes interview. This blogger already knew which excerpts from Clarke's book were going to be used by Stahl."

This is similiar to the blogs and bloggers re the Yellowcake Scam and the Joseph "Plame" Wilson scams this past summer.

This stuff is wll coordinated and ready to use when the leftists need to block some bad news that comes up re their people.

So what bad news for the lefties are they trying to hide with this bs?