We should demand the liberal media tell the truth about Richard Clark.

The partisan, liberal media has been claiming that Richard Clark is a Republican just because he stated that he voted for a Republican in a primary. Though Clark never claimed he was a Republican, in their zeal to make him credible, they have been claiming he is a Republican. The fact is, Clark voted for John McCain like many Democrats (some Democrats even want to put McCain on Kerry's ticket. And the New York Times, house organ of the DNC, endorsed McCain in the primaries). Sunday, Clark admitted to Russet that he voted for Gore. Also, he has only given money to Democrats, never Republicans. So not only has the liberal media been dishonest, but Clark also has been dishonest when he only mentioned his vote for a Republican to make himself seem more credible, and didn't offer to set the record straight.

This is a tactic of the partisan, liberal media. The liberal media did the same thing with St. Anita Hill, claiming she was a conservative Republican with no ax to grind, when she was an ultraliberal Democrat with an ax to grind. They based their lie that she was conservative and Republican on the fact that, like Clark, she was obscure about her party affiliation claiming she was conservative about her family because she was family orientated and that she supported Judge Bork in ONE conversation. The liberal media concluded she was a conservative Republican because of those two claims of hers and because she worked in the Dept. of Education and the EEOC when Reagan was President.

I suggest we look up which papers claimed Clark was a Republican and bombard them with requests to make retractions and make those retractions as prominent as their false claims that he was a liberal. I also suggest that we request the news outlets that have been supporting Clark point out that his vindictive criticism of Dr. Condoleezza Rice and the Bush administration has already been PROVEN to be inaccurate. For example, he made an outrageous claim (which the liberal media reported) that Rice didn't know about Al Keada. That has proven to be false because Rice gave an interview about Al Keada a year before Clark claims he spoke to her, and in that interview she gave a long explanation of Al Keada. We should demand the liberal media set the record straight.

Poll needs some attention:

"Rate the 9/11 Commission so far"

Choices are:

Today's Poll:

Question: Rate the 9/11 Commission so far

	Useful to war on terror
	Partisan witch-hunt by Democrats
	Clarke is hero/whistle blower
	Clarke driven solely by his ego
	Shows desperation of Bush-haters
	Waste of time and money

I preferred: Partisan witch-hunt by Democrats

It's worse than that. They're not just saying he was a Republican.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/ae/articles/0328enemies28.html

"Republicans suggest Clarke's criticism is intended to spur book sales or boost President Bush's likely rival, Sen. John Kerry. Clarke, who voted for Bush in 2000, testified he wouldn't accept a position in a Kerry administration."

Read that again. "Clarke, who voted for Bush in 2000"...

There is no way to extrapolate that much information out of what Clarke said in his testimony. There are only two possible conclusions. One - Clarke's phrasing was clearly misleading enough that AP journalists were conned into believing that he voted for Bush, and if that attempt to mislead can be judged to have been deliberate, that is sufficient grounds for perjury... or two - the AP deliberately lied to boost Clarke's credibility.

Either way - I think this is unconscionable, and for such a blatant misrepresentation of fact, someone's head should roll.

Qwinn

I just sent emails to the the Arizona Republic and the AP asking them to retract the error in the story. Below is the letter I wrote to the AP. Feel free to cut, paste, and send it.

AP = info@ap.org (I hope this is the correct department. It is the only e-mail I could find.)

Arizona Republic = correction@arizonarepublic.com (This definately is the correct department.)

Dear AP,

The story "'Against All Enemies' is too hot to keep on shelves" is incorrect. The story was written by Hillel Italie and one of the papers it appears in is the Mar. 28, 2004 edition of the Arizona Republic. In the AP's biased zeal to give Richard Clark credibility he doesn't deserve, Italie ends the article claiming Clark voted for Bush in 2000. On Sunday, on Tim Russet, Clark admitted he voted for Gore. The liberal press has been portraying Clark as a Republican simply because he admitted to voting for McCain in the primaries, like many Democrats. Back during the 2000 primaries, there were news articles about how Democrats were voting for McCain in the Republican primaries, and how that didn't mean they would vote for him in the general election. This leads me to wonder how anyone but the most biased of reporters would conclude that Clark is a Republican or that he voted for Bush, simply because he admits to voting for McCain. In addition, Clark has never given money to Republican candidates; he has always supported Democrats with his money. Clark won't admit his party affiliation, but his voting pattern and donations make it more likely that he is a Democrat. In addition, parts of Clark's story have already been discredited like his outrageous claim that Condoleezza Rice indicated she didn't know what Al Keada was when he had a conversation about it with her. A year before that conversation, Rice gave an interview about Al Keada on the radio. Finally, every women who came forward against Bill Clinton were dismissed by Democrats and the liberal media as gold diggers who were after a book deals even though none of them made much money and none of them got a book deal. (Ironically and hypocritically, Anita Hill got a book deal worth over a million dollars, but unlike women who accused Bill Clinton, the leader of the Democrats, the liberal media never questioned her credibility.) Now Clark, a probable Democrat, comes forward with a book that will make him a millionaire, contradicts himself, is caught lying about Rice, and is obscure about his party affiliation, and you so called "journalists" give him instant credibility.

Please retract your error.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.