Howlin did not say when Clarke became a consultant, only that it was news to her. This whole thing is just a mistake, but it really ought to be corrected rather than letting rumors propagate.
It seems that Howlin saw a TV caption identifying Clarke as an ABC consultant, jumped to the conclusion that he had just been hired, and posted a Breaking News article based on that incorrect presumption. Here's why I thought that:
- The headline, which she wrote, said:
**Richard Clarke Takes Position as ABC News Consultant**
The use of the present tense "takes" means that the hiring just happened now.
- She posted it in Breaking News, implying again that the hiring had just happened.
- Her comment in #1 was:
"Looks like Mr. Clarke won't be out of view and/or power for very long!!!!"
This again suggests that his hiring was a change that would help him maintain some level of prominence.
- In #74, she responded to my having pointed out that he wasn't newly hired by writing:
Then why are they annoucing it today? And why did CBS get that exclusive interview?
I bet they let him go and hired him back.
This is from today:
""Mr. Clarke has already given 14 hours of testimony to the commission investigating why the government failed to prevent those attacks," said Mr. Stephanopoulos, also noting that Mr. Clarke now works for ABC as a consultant."
By the way, if you look at the last item above, it appears that this rumor started with George Stephanopoulos. Democratic spin for some reason?
She posted it in Breaking News, implying again that the hiring had just happened.That's a damn LIE.
This is from today: ""Mr. Clarke has already given 14 hours of testimony to the commission investigating why the government failed to prevent those attacks," said Mr. Stephanopoulos, also noting that Mr. Clarke now works for ABC as a consultant."
I suppose you don't think the word "NOW" in a piece posted on the internet means anything, HUH?
As I said above, don't ever accuse me of starting a rumor or posting a false thread; it's pretty clear that either you're too dense to understand the orignial purpose of my thread, or you're doing it intentionally.