Posted on 09/24/2006 6:20:14 PM PDT by BlueJ7
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
But .. but .. but BJ himself just said he had all kinds of plans in place when he left office: What gives??!
btt
BJ is a Clintoooooon - that is what gives!
=== placemark ===
Bookmark and thanks
PING
We've been posting this since the ABC movie!
It's about time somebody else picked it up.
bttt
more great excerpts from Richard Clarke's book that clinton probably skipped
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/09/clinton-and-bin-laden-and-perils-of.html
should we not cross examine all the principles now...... and what about that sock stuffing Berger..... get him too!
Don't you know? SinkEmperor clintoon is a feckless degenerate liar.
And once again Clinton is exposed as a liar. Funny how you will never hear him called a liar in the media like they do the President now.
don't forget about this part....
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
Why would Clinton push a Richard Clarke book. Didnt he write a book himself. Couldnt he have spoken up in his own book? He got paid 14 million for it and although i have never seen it it would appear to me that he would have explained what he did for 14 milllion?
Bookmarked. Excellent find.
Sure blows the hell out of what Clinton told Wallace in the interview. Did he honestly think no one would challenge his assertions and offer up proof he is a pathetic liar?
Thanks for the post!
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.