I must ask you Clarke supporters this question/I did it

[marie123]

as I find it mind boggling.

Did you all also hear Clark's briefing in august of 2002?

I know he gave a heart bleeding story yesterday with an apology that had most in tears, but how does one ignore the briefing he gave in August of 2002? It is the opposite almost verbatim of what he said yesterday.

[xultar]

1. ClarkE Clark with an EEE n/t

[marie123]

4. I knew you would do that!

What a riot. I was sitting here thinking hmmmm I should have typed clark with and E

Now watch, instead of answering my quesiton the no E will become the issue

[BurtWorm]

11. You can add the "e".

Just click on edit.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. Maybe because...

...there is a significant person in US politics surnamed Clark?

I doubt there would be the same noise if you misspelled, say, Tenet as Tennet.

And, lo and behold, people are answering to the real issue too. How can that be?

[BurtWorm]

29. What's so hard about using the editing tool? It's so easy to add that e!

:shrug:

[terisel]

35. August 6, 2001 Intelligence Briefing to Bush---by Clarke?

First a refresher about the "news" reports on August 6, 2001 as Bush spends the month of August 2001 in Crawford, away from Washington. the longest presidential vacation since Richard Nixon.

KING: It is interesting to see the mirror image, if you will, of how this president is viewed at six months and make a comparison to Clinton. Bush has high personal approval ratings, but people have doubts about his agenda and leadership skills if you look at poll data. Clinton's personal approval had fallen considerably, but people were behind his agenda, according to polls then. It is a reminder that things can change a lot over the course of a presidency.

<http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/08/06/king.otsc/>


Second: Is Calblog correct below when he says that the person giving Bush the August 6 2001 briefing on terrorism is Richard Clarke?

Richard Clarke, the former NSC counterterrorism expert from Bush I, Clinton and 2 years plus of Bush II is publishing his insider book that takes no prisoners. Word is that Rove is very afraid of what Clarke has to say -- particularly because Clarke was the August 6 2001 briefer of Bush, and there is a good deal about how he got told never to raise such matters again with Bush....The close collaborator with Richard Clarke -- going back to Bush I at NSC was Rand Beers -- who quit last summer in disgust, and walked down the street and volunteered his services to Kerry, where he has been ever since.

<http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003187.html>

[thebigidea]

91. your mispelled Clarke is as much of a distraction as...

oh, say... that ridiculous background briefing.

[truthspeaker]

2. he talked about that

He was working for the president and he was given an assignment to write a positive briefing. There's a link to his explanation somewhere in this forum.

PS It's Clarke with an "e". I thought you had a question for supporters of Wesley Clark!

[xultar]

3. IT isn't Ignoring...He was told how to SPIN the briefing by BushCo

now they are trying to hang him with it?

Puhleez

[Avalux]

5. marie123 -

First of all - the correct spelling of his name is "Clarke" - we don't want to confuse him with Wes. Second - he was part of the administration at that time and had to tow the line. Politics. I believe what the man said yesterday was the truth.

[truthspeaker]

38. as long as we're correcting spelling ;)

It's "toe the line".

[Avalux]

43. Oops!

Really? I've lived my whole life thinking it was "tow" instead of "toe". Guess you learn something new everyday! :hi:

[Flubadubya]

89. FYI sparosnare...

Toe The Line
Yes, it's toe, not tow, a common mistake. Toe the line or mark dates to 1813 and is a metaphorical reference to the start of a race, the runners conforming to the starter's orders.

[truizm]

He explained in his testimony yesterday, did you actually watch it?

[maddezmom]

6. CLARKE not Clark n/t

[BurtWorm]

7. Clarke addressed that yesterday.

Essentially saying he was an employee of the administration whose job it was to put a positive spin on things. Furthermore, that was an off-the-record background briefing. Fox's release of it is in violation of journalistic ethics.

[marie123]

17. I guess what will happen

is we will remain split. RW will believe 2002 and LW will believe yesterday's explanation.

You know we can stop this Iraqi invasion, we can improve our health care we can even create jobs!

How you ask, by not being so divided.

Why cant we all march together? As a RW I assure I want and end to this Iraqi invasion, I want my job back, i want health insurance of some type. Nothing will change until we unite and change it

[maddezmom]

22. so what is it that you believe?

[BurtWorm]

27. Why is it so difficult to understand that Clarke's 2002 statement

was influenced by the fact that he had to work with these people the next day? Thompson acted shocked by the fact that anyone would "spin" for their bosses. Was he being sincerely shocked? Are you sincerely baffled by this? Do you not work and live in the same world I do, one where people paper over differences they have behind the scenes for the sake of appearances in public?

[Llewlladdwr]

76. Doesn't wash to me.

You're ignoring the fact that he didn't HAVE to work with 'these people' the next day, or ever again. He could have simply turned in his resignation and then as a former high-level civil servant stepped into a private sector job at probably twice the money. And started spreading the word back in 2002 instead of waiting until now. The only thing Clarke conclusively established in his 2002 briefing is that he'll spin for whoever holds his leash.

[never cry wolf]

81. He explained that as well

First, he felt that he could do more good protecting the nation from the inside. Second, he was in the middle of a major project working on a plan to counter cyber-terrorism.

This whole thing is bullcrap. big jim thompson is a BIG time lawyer, chairman of winston and strawn, you can't tell me he has never spun the facts for a guilty client to make him sound innocent, that's his duty to his client just as it was Clarke's duty to his boss to present things in the way they asked him to.

[BurtWorm]

88. He did resign.

And his book was ready to be published in 2003, but the Bush people held its publication up. They had a right to vet it to protect national security secrets.

Is your objection really relevant to the information Clarke has been sharing? Or is it just a stall to keep from having to deal with it?

[Spazito]

93. He believed he could at least try and get the bush admin to pay...

attention to Al Qaeda and terrorism by working within the system, he didn't succeed, sadly, and almost 3000 died. I give him credit for staying and trying instead of quitting.

[gator_in_Ontario]

30. sounds like RW

$$$
no concern for civil rights, foriegn policy, etc, etc...
All $$$
ME ME ME!
The left wing of the Democratic party is always accused of being "not moderate enough"....
Does it ever occur to those folks that maybe, just maybe the DNC is not left wing enough??

[truthseeker1]

39. Michael Moore's description of the self-centered conservative

"...every political argument you make must be about THEM and for THEM. They base every decision on "How does this benefit ME?" Instead of fighting this self-centeredness, just go with it, embrace it, feed it. Yes, you say to them, this is good for YOU. The conservative lives life in the first person singular - I, ME, MINE - and that is the pronoun-centric language you must speak if you are to be heard."

From Dude Where's My Country, p. 187
Chapter 10: How To Talk To Your Conservative Brother-in-Law

[catzies]

66. Why "RW will believe 2002" should not be so.

I had this exact same discussion last night.

This week, Mr. Clarke is UNDER OATH. Now is when what you're saying COUNTS.

If he's lying, he's now subject to RULE OF LAW and can get in serious trouble.

After all, that's what the RW bleated about during Clinton's impeachment, wasn't it? He "lied under oath!"

If Dr. Rice has all this time to go on every single news channel all day instead of going under oath before the commitee she isn't subject to RULE OF LAW because she is NOT SWORN TO TELL THE TRUTH.

If Dr. Rice wants to be believed, she must GO UNDER OATH WHERE YOU'RE SWORN TO TELL THE TRUTH.

That's why I believe Clarke now.

You know how the RW and esp. this Admin. prides itself for being "on message?" That's what Clarke was doing then - staying "on message" because that was his job then.

That was then.

This is now.

"Get over it; move on." ;)

[thebigidea]

92. "as a RW" you should probably know that this isn't really the site for you

[jpak]

100. Clarke was under oath yesterday

Rice was not - and never will testify under oath and in public.

If Clarke lied - he can be prosecuted for perjury.

[billybob537]

21. So whats new

Faux's existence is in violation of journalistic ethics.

[Cocoa]

8. he was in the administration at that time

now he's out. He also predicted that Tenet would change his tune if he were out.

[Caution]

9. he explained that pretty well in his testimony

additionally, after having spent a year thinking about and writing about his experiences as the terrorism chief and analyzing his own and the administrations actions, isn't it just a bit possible that in the end he decided (as he flat out stated) that he and the administration failed to do their jobs?

I don't understand why people (particularly right-wingers) cannot wrap their heads around the idea that human beings make mistakes and change their minds...(most people refer to this as "learning")

[billybob537]

25. It's not that

They can't believe anyone would apologize.

[LuLu550]

10. As a PR person I can tell you

when you are told to spin a story, you try to walk the fine line between a outright lie and putting the "best face" on a story. When your employer tells you to play up the good, play down the bad, that is what you do if you want to keep your job.

[bhunt70]

18. good answer

[Corgigal]

12. ignore the briefing

We understand what it's like to work for some incompetent asshole but you want to make the company look good. He just spun the "good" parts to fix it from within. I guess you never worked for a jackass, consider yourself lucky.

[kentuck]

13. Are you talking about Wes Clark or Richard Clarke ??

:)

[Spazito]

14. It is interesting that you raise that question...

given that Clarke answered that question, not just once but multiple times. He was asked by condi to respond to an article that was coming out by emphasizing the positive aspects of the bush admin response to 9/11 and to minimize the negatives, as an employee he did as requested by his boss.

The question I don't see you asking is why condi leaked a backgrounder and why she won't testify under oath and in public about these very questions.

(Edited to correct grammar)

[ET Awful]

16. Did you actually listen to the testimony yesterday?

Or are you just repeating what you heard on Fox?

The fact is that he was asked about that press conference yesterday and gave testimony under oath as to its origin . . . he was told to spin it positively by the administration, and as he was still working as part of the administration, did so.

You also miss the fact that he was making an official statement at the time and had to state the official position of the administration. There's also the fact that the entire transcript was of a statement given as deep background, which requires that the source never be named. Oddly, the day he's slated to testify, the Whitehouse releases a transcript to Fox and authorizes the release of the name of the source.

Odd that they can do that but not come up with the name of the person or persons who leaked Valerie Plames name.

The transcript in question from 2002 simply provides more proof for what Clarke stated under oath yesterday. It's simply more proof that that the Bush administration did not take terrorism seriously prior to 9/11 and that they attempted to cover that fact up as time went on.

[marie123]

20. thank you

I did miss the briefing and yes I am repeating what I heard on fox.

This is why I ask the question to begin with

[Spazito]

31. My advice is to turn off Fox and go elsewhere if you REALLY want

the truth which I am sure you do!

[maddezmom]

32. here's the transcript of the testimony

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/politics/24CND-PTEX.html

it's worth reading.

[maddezmom]

37. Clarke answers the question again on Larry King

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/lkl.00.html

[truthseeker1]

50. Did anyone else notice Bob Kerrey is not listed as a Speaker?

I watched the testimony and he was present yesterday. That is weird that the NY Times would make such a glaring error. (Well I suppose it's the Federal News Service that made the error, but you'd think the Times would have caught it.)

[tishaLA]

34. Maybe if you read legitimate media

these qustions wouldn't appear. Fox has a vested interest in making sure this story is spun their way because they broke the seal of "background" at the behest of an unethical administration.

[alarcojon]

105. You seem like an honest person

Keep searching for the truth (in the Clarke matter, that was yesterday)

Don't ever just rely on one source of news. Think for yourself.

The following link about Fox News is informative.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Heh. I had this rant some time ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1271238

Prescient, ain't I? Or is it just that RW spiners are too predictable?

[worldgonekrazy]

90. Also, do not forget

that the origin of that memo was supposed to be confidential. The White House declassified the author (Clarke) specifically to discredit him. When Clarke wrote it he was under the impression that he was writing some trash piece to defend the Administration (something he has to do) but that it would not interfere with anything he wished to say earlier. It might not make him more credible in many people's eyes, but it certainly explains a lot for me.

[Bridget Burke]

19. Still haven't corrected the name?

A bit slow, are you?

Clarke is right. Your little president & his henchmen & henchwomen are wrong.

Is that simple enough for you?

[truthspeaker]

42. deleted

[marie123]

44. Oh geez

yes I am a bit slow, give me a sec and I will fix it

[Beacho]

23. You Clark(e) supporters?

Don't you mean people that want to get to the bottom of what the hell happened before and on Sept 11th?

Why do you frame it in terms of 'supporting' a person?

That misses the point completely. It's not about Clarke, it's about what he has to say, and wether it is factual

[truthseeker1]

26. Clarke was forced to lie to keep his job

Clarke calmly noted that, in August 2002, he was special assistant to President Bush. White House officials asked him to give a "background briefing" to the press, to minimize the political damage of a Time cover story on Bush's failure to take certain measures before 9/11. "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to play down the negative aspects," Clarke said, adding, "When one is a special assistant to the president, one is asked to do that sort of thing. I've done it for several presidents."

Nervous laughter came from the crowd—or was it from the panel? The implication was clear: This is what I used to do and—though he didn't mention them explicitly—this is what Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley are doing now when they're defending the president.

......

"There's a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about," Clarke replied. Someone in his position had three choices. He could have resigned, but he had important work yet to do. He could have lied, but nobody told him to do that, and he wouldn't have in any case. "The third choice," he said, "is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts. That's what I did."

Well, Thompson asked in a bruised tone, is there one set of moral rules for special assistants to the White House and another set for everybody else?

"It's not a question of morality at all," Clarke replied. "It's a question of politics."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097750/

[BurtWorm]

36. You rebutted yourself--or rather Clarke rebutted you

He did not lie, he said. "The third choice," he said, "is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts. That's what I did."

[truthseeker1]

46. You can't be serious!

#2=#3 - at least in the real world

[BurtWorm]

48. I'm taking Clarke at his word.

He made the distinction, not me.

[truthseeker1]

54. Well.....read between the lines

Everyone else in that hearing did. They knew what he was saying.

[BurtWorm]

58. He says it so much more elegantly than you.

No offense intended. I'm a former English major, so I try to be careful not to read between the lines. If you asked Clarke point blank, "Did you lie?" as the commissioners did, I guarantee you he would say "No." Does that mean he told the truth? That's almost beside the point. The point is he is careful to make a distinction, and if we take his words seriously, we should take the distinction seriously.

[truthseeker1]

63. That's why I'm on DU

and he's in front of the 9/11 Commission under oath.

Another important "distinction"

[Adelante]

85. "It's not a question of morality at all," Clarke replied. "It's a question

"It's a question of politics."

That's the answer right there.

There is a difference between a staff member spinning for the press what the president thinks and a private individual writing a book and saying what he himself thinks.

[tandot]

28. I find the 2002 briefing adequately explained by Clarke

I agree with some of the posts: Sometimes you end up with a boss who is totally incompetent and you have to cover for that. Either that or you are fired.

And that the administration is scrambling to come up with all kinds of "evidence" to make Clarke look bad is evidence enough for me that Clarke is right on. Besides that, he isn't the only one saying similar things: O'Neill and others had enough guts to come forward.

They just try to smear and discredit Clarke. They know they messed up and now they try to cover it up.

[sadiesworld]

33. You're right, there are two choices:

Believe the unsupported statements he made anonymously while in Bushco's employ. Or believe the statements (which are supported by a wide variety of witnesses, documentation) which he has made under oath as a free agent. Gee, tough call.

[billybob537]

40. The missed point here is

Bushstappo operates appointed the commision to whitwash the investigation. Why would a commitee member (Lehman) question his ( Clarkes )veracity in public? The findings are already in the bag. Condi Rice is going to take the hit, and she knows it. It's a shame to waste a perfectly good party hack.

[Gloria]

41. His answer on Larry King was even clearer

He said you are left with three choices:
1. resign
2. I forget the second...sorry, it's on the tape that I can't get to now

3. If you want to stay and try to work for change from the inside, do what you are told, in this case, accent the positive as ordered

He was so succinct on LK---1, 2, 3. Makes perfect sense.

He also then said that it's ironic, he is now being criticized for NOT criticizing Bush then! He asked LK, Do you know what would have happened if I had criticized back then?? I would have been fired the next day!

[BurtWorm]

47. Option 2: You can lie

He said that in his testimony, anyway.

PS: there are two other options he didn't mention: you can refuse to do the briefing, which may be as good as resigning, or you can tell the truth, which may also be as good as resigning.

[truthseeker1]

56. So he lied in order to keep his job....is that what you're saying?:?

[BurtWorm]

59. No, that is not what I'm saying.

But I am making a distinction between truth-telling and doing what Clarke did. I'll bet he would too. But there's also a distinction between lying and doing what he did.

[Lex]

61. No, he was trying to make his idiot boss look better

and in retrospect he probably couldn't stand constantly have to clean up behind the neglect/incompetence of the people he was working for at the time: Bush and Condi and the rest of the criminals.

[BurtWorm]

65. He also said he was working on something else that he believed in

i.e., protecting US cyberspace from terrorist attack. His priorities were elsewhere. He was just doing his job.

[Lex]

67. Yes, I'm sure he was trying to make sure *something*

was accomplished in the arena of terrorism protection. I bet he felt like if he didn't AT LEAST get the cyberspace protection program planned, that would fall by the wayside too.

Yes, I do remember now that Clarke said he was working and trying to prevent any more terrible attacks from terrorists, and if he told the unvarnished truth at the time, he wouldn't be able to finish that cyberspace project.

How many of us have had to parse words in the past to cover up for a half-ass boss, but maybe resigned later because we could no longer stand toting water for the nincompoop?

[BurtWorm]

69. This should not be difficult to understand, regardless of your party.

And once again it shows that Clarke was right when he said the Bushies would be throwing anything and everything at him but relevant facts to distract him and the media from the meat of his charges: that the Bushists dropped the ball, didn't get it despite having it repeatedly spelled out for them, and, therefore, made us more vulnerable to the attacks that finally got us on 9/11.

[Blue_Roses]

83. Larry King asked him if he lied

and he said "no" he wasn't going to do that when asked by the administration. He was then told to "highlight" the positive and "downplay" the negative.

[troublemaker]

45. What's more interesting is

Clarke's 9/15 email to Rice offering defenses of the Bush approach. That email has been trotted out to show that Clarke's a big liar, but isn't the real question this?

Why did Clarke feel on 9/15 that he needed to advise Rice on how to handle the inevitable bad PR when it became apparant that Bush hadn't done anything?

[tishaLA]

49. One might also ask

why Condescending Rice decided to de-classify the emails that were sent to her by Clarke on the 15th.

It's more sleazy, ugly politics from the administration that outted Valerie Plame.

[sampsonblk]

51. What about the others?

That's one of several problems for the White House:

1. ClarkE is one of the top counter-terrorism people the country had. If he says that he couldn't get a meeting with Bush, and that Condi told him "I will look into it," then it doesn't matter about his 2002 spin. What matters is whether these events actually took place or not - and Condi won't testify under oath. So I believe ClarkE. And if he was out of the loop, Condi should be fired along with Shrub.

2. He isn't the only one saying that Bush was all about Iraq prior to 9/11/

3. I remember what Bush talked about previous to 9/11 and it was not terrorism, it was tax cuts and missile defense.

I believe ClarkE.

[troublemaker]

52. What a weird issue!

The White House argument is that Clarke is of such low character that he was willing to work for Bush in the first place.

When, in 2002, Rice and Fleisher asked him to lie for the White House he declined, but he agreed to put the best possible spin on things.

They asked for his help. He said "I'm not going to lie, but I'll put the best face on things."

QUESTION: Doesn't that sequence of events suggest that Clarke, in 2002, believed that lying would be necessary to defend against the Time article?

If Bush asked Paul O'Neill to defend the tax cuts in a background briefing and O'Neill said "I'm not going to lie," wouldn't that suggest that O'Neill found the cuts difficult to defend truthfully?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. The Groucho Marx defense! (nt)

[truthseeker1]

53. Fox: Occasionally fair and balanced!

This cracked me up yesterday (and most of the audience too)

KERREY: (LAUGHTER) And let me also say this document of Fox News earlier, this transcript that they had, this is a background briefing. And all of us that have provided background briefings for the press before should beware. I mean, Fox should say occasionally fair and balanced after putting something like this out.

KERREY: (LAUGHTER) Because they violated a serious trust.

KERREY: (APPLAUSE) All of us that come into this kind of an environment and provide background briefings for the press I think will always have this as a reminder that sometimes it isn't going to happen, that it's background. Sometimes, if it suits their interest, they're going to go back, pull the tape, convert it into transcript and send it out in the public arena and try to embarrass us or discredit us. So I object to what they've done, and I think it's an unfortunate thing they did.

[ewagner]

55. Yes, I heard it

and I have had to draw conclusions from my own experience and instincts about it.

I've known and worked with career bureaucrats for a long time. Clarke's 2002 background briefing was exactly what any staff member would do. I know because I've done it. One year ago on March 21 I was asked to do it again and refused and walked off of a job I held for 10 years. There comes a point where you just can't live with yourself anymore and I think that's what happened to Clarke. I would not be surprised to see more statements from his past come back to haunt him. It's the way it works.

I don't hold Clarke up as a hero. Actually, I think he's pretty normal for a bureaucrat. But I will give him credit for having pure guts........

[Kathy in Cambridge]

60. Marie, why do you watch Fox?

[marie123]

72. I like fox news

How different are they from other American news? They all pretty much say the same thing, it is just a matter of how you like it said. I guess

Fox news came into my life after my husband died, as it was 24 hours of news and I used just keep it on in the background while I slept.
Now things are different and
I still like fox news. The morning staff, they entertain me, and the funny looking guy in the morning (I forget his name) but he is a riot.
Reilly I used to watch all the time, but this past year he has had a better than thou attitude and it has pissed me off a bit.

Hannity and Colmes has become interesting again cause they are allowing the other side to speak. Meehan is really a strong guy who not only has a lot to say, but stands up to fox and hannity and speaks his mind. he always gets his point across

[Junkdrawer]

78. A progressive who likes Faux News...

And here I thought that was impossible. :eyes:

[BurtWorm]

79. I think marie123 has admitted

to being "RW." But she's also said she is opposed to the war and in favor of universal healthcare and against Bush. She can correct me if I'm misrepresenting her.

[leftchick]

94. then the question then becomes...

why does marie consider herself RW? I am curious.

[Blue_Roses]

87. "I like FOX news"

:puke: Excuse me while I find this very strange...but then I've never really been a glutton for punishment and lies.

[thebigidea]

95. ewwwwwwwwww

"as it was 24 hours of news and I used just keep it on in the background while I slept."

congrats - that's the creepiest thing I've read all month.

[Skittles]

62. don't be so naive

it's called spin and EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT.

[tishaLA]

64. PLEASE TELL ME THE DISCREPENCIES

between August 2002 and what he testified to yesterday.
I'd be interested in hearing what you think they are.

On edit: I'd lik to direct your attention to this: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.php#002757

They've brought this transcript forth because in it Clarke seems to follow some of the same line or spin that the Bush administration is now using against him -- much of it this point about whether there was a 'plan' handed over. Now, I've given it a quick read. And on some points there's not much of a contradiction at all. On other points there are contradictions, though I think one of the issues here is that what now Clarke says the new team ignored wasn't a Clinton administration plan per se, but rather his plan.

In any case, the larger point I think is this: Career civil servants working for a given White House do tend to follow that White House's spin when they're giving background briefings. That's hardly a surprise. It's somewhat in the nature of the enterprise.

<snip>

He's now come forward, speaking for himself, with a long list of detailed claims and accusations about the White House's inattention to the terrorism issue during the first eight months of the administration and their desire to wrench the war on terror into a second Iraq war after 9/11


As Fred Kaplan notes in this excellent piece in Slate, if Clarke's claims are factually wrong they should be easily rebuttable -- given that the White House has all the relevant documents and evidence at its disposal. Yet, thus far, they've scarcely made an attempt and have focused all their fire on attacking Clarke personally -- that he was liar and a boob and both out-of-the-loop and responsible for everything that went wrong.

[Kahuna]

68. He was following orders, like "employees" do.

He was not giving a briefing on his own behalf and agenda. :eyes:

[Beetwasher]

70. MARIE123, WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU?

Lot's of people here offering you solid answers, and you have nothing to say? How pathetic...

[marie123]

74. goodness beetwasher I am fucking here! :-)

I cant belong to one side. Although when asked I will call myself a conservative. However, I am probably not a good one these days. I do not like all this fighting between us . Sometimes I think the government likes it when we attack each other as it gives them the support they need to make new laws and destroy old ones

I find Fox news entertaining. I like most of the staff and have concluded that American news is American news. No matter what news station I watch they will say the same things. It all depends on how you like it sugar coated.

[Beetwasher]

77. Sorry, But That's Just Lame

"I do not like all this fighting between us."

Too bad. We didn't start it. Talk to the monkey in the WH, who stole an election and acted as if he had a mandate to railroad his radical policies without any compromising and then politicized 9/11 in order to further his own parties rejected platform. He LOST the popular vote but decided to ram his radical policies down our throats anyway using 9/11 as cover.

Then, as if that wasn't enough, he does everything he can to BLOCK any sort of legitimate investigation to find answers about what happened on 9/11. His only response is to DESTROY anyone who tries to level w/ the American people about what reallhy happened.

So far, you have not responded thoughtfully, or honestly to anyone who addressed your initial post. Clarke is finally coming clean and taking responsibility for his personal failures and shining the light on the corrupt Bush admin.

I defy you to point to the inconsistencies between the Fox transcript and anything he's said recently.

[marie123]

80. I do not have the transcript of 2002

I would have to have them both in front of me in order to be exact.

However, as I was reading the transcripts on TV last night and Clarke in 2002 talked of how Bush changed Clinton's policies by making them more aggressive. Clarke with an E had like 7 points of what the WH was doing, and they were impressive. Sounded like in 2002 Bush had things under control. Then on the other side of the screen was what he had said during his briefing yesterday. Nothing matched. he had lied. Now he is useless to me. Which lie should we believe? You all believe the Clarke of yesterday, cause you can relate to PR talk and he has convinced you that that is what he was doing in 2002 and you maybe correct.
Personally, I can relate to money talk. This guy is going to make tons of money on his book and his name will now go down in history as... well it will depend on who writes the book

A liar is a liar is a liar. When did he lie and when did he know he lied.

May I also say that I find your passion and determination breath taking and impressive. Sometimes I wish you would all just remember at the end of the day we are all Americans and we all want the same things. Too bad we go about doing it so hatefully

[Beetwasher]

84. Baloney

The Fox transcript is available and I have read it and there's nothing that is a verbatim contradiction. Nothing at all. Stop being lazy and show me the direct contradictions or admit you're only getting your spin from Fox instead of using your own brain.

Clarke doesn't need the money from the book. That's just the lamest thing I've ever heard.

He spoke to Fox ANONYMOUSLY in '02 and for good reason. He knew what he was asked to do by his boss, which was spin the Time story. That's what presidential aides do, they spin things and put the best face on them for their boss. Now he's no longer obligated to spin and he's coming clean. Any one with half a brain can tell what's going on.

"May I also say that I find your passion and determination breath taking and impressive. Sometimes I wish you would all just remember at the end of the day we are all Americans and we all want the same things. Too bad we go about doing it so hatefully"

Yeah, whatever. Apparently we all don't want the same thing. I want the truth about 9/11. Bush supporters obviously would rather we just forget about why or how it happened. This has nothing to do w/ hate. It's anger and righteous at that.

[marie123]

98. enjoy the rest of your day

and god bless

[Beetwasher]

99. Thought So

Pathetic...

[thebigidea]

96. um, no.

"at the end of the day we are all Americans and we all want the same things."

what Dick Cheney and George Bush want is to rule the fucking world. I'm not much for that.

[Jim__]

71. Could you be specific?

Can you point out the places where Clarke's testimony yesterday was, "the opposite almost verbatim of what he said" in August 2002?

[Missy Vixen]

73. I must ask you a few questions, Marie

>I know he gave a heart bleeding story yesterday with an apology that had most in tears,<

Sorry to read that you don't believe that Mr. Clarke's apology was sincere. At least he gave one, didn't he?

>but how does one ignore the briefing he gave in August of 2002? It is the opposite almost verbatim of what he said yesterday.<

Okay, Marie.

First of all, do you have a boss? Has that boss ever asked you to do or say something that you didn't agree with?

Has that boss ever asked you to do so on the national record and in nationally broadcast media?

No, you say? You'd never, ever do anything to compromise your morals and values? I'm sure that most, if not all, of those reading this thread and registered on DU and other political sites have had a boss in their employment career that they disagreed with, more than once, and was asked to do or say things on behalf of that boss (or the company they all worked for,) that they had no other choice but to do. I also believe that there are many of us who have worked for a boss, or bosses, that were engaged in foolhardy at the least or illegal activity at the worst.

Mr. Clarke has stated that he stayed with the Bush administration as long as he did due to the fact that he wanted to change what was happening (the total disregard for the very real dangers al Quaida and other terrorist groups presented to the United States and its citizens,) with the administration's priorities, to possibly turn things around. When he figured out that it wasn't going to happen, he left. He wrote a very nice resignation letter, as most smart professionals do. I wrote a nice resignation letter to a boss that I considered evil incarnate, and I'll bet that there are, again, untold thousands who do it daily.

Mr. Clarke spoke out about what he witnessed because he is a patriot. It's easy to shut up and do what you're told, and keep doing it. After all, most people like sleeping inside and paying their bills on time. His 30 years of government service (and the fact that he was running the White House situation room on September 11th, 2001, while George W. Bush was running wherever he could hide, and Dick Cheney ran to the bunker, where his wife Lynne was too busy turning down the feed coming from the situation room to listen to CNN, puts the lie to Condoleeza Rice's insistence that Mr. Clarke's recollections are not the truth.

I'm sure his heart bleeds, Marie. Mine does. I think about those whose loved ones perished on September 11th, and in an extremely unnecessary military conflict, and my heart breaks for those families and friends who will never, EVER, have their loved ones back. All Americans' hearts should bleed. If they're "over it," they don't have a soul.

Julie

[marie123]

75. you know

everytime I read a post like this i just want to die.

I cant believe we are killing our soldiers. I never anticipated this when I voted in 2000. I never thought we could do what we have done

[thebigidea]

97. oh, but we're all Americans. We all want the same things.

Global hegemony and war without end! God Bless America!

[FlaGranny]

101. Not to

hijack the thread, but your post reminded me of a long-ago job I had, where the boss repeatedly asked me to tell "white" lies. He gave me what for one day because I wouldn't do it. I wound up walking out that day - quitting. I was his office manager, not his secretary, and I just wouldn't lie for him. I don't think I would have done it as his secretary either. I don't guess I'd make a very good secretary if lying were required. :-) Ya know, a few years later, he called me and asked me to work for him again? And I did, because by that time he knew I was honest, and I knew that he wouldn't ask me to be dishonest again.

[Missy Vixen]

103. Thread hijacking is okay with me!

>Ya know, a few years later, he called me and asked me to work for him again? And I did, because by that time he knew I was honest, and I knew that he wouldn't ask me to be dishonest again.<

Flagranny, good for you!

It takes real guts to stand up to someone who's bent on your "massaging the facts" or outright lying to help them get whatever it is they want. You did the right thing.

I have worked for someone previously who spent his day hiding in his office while I told (on his instruction to do so,) his clients that he was "in the field". When I left, I was friendly, I was polite, and I told my former boss that I resented his insistence that I lie for him. Whenever I call a business where the person I need to speak with seems to be on perma-ignore, I'm nice, I'm polite, I'm friendly, and I get right to the point: "I'll hold till they're available. I hope this won't be a problem."

In the meantime, (and back to the original subject,) the stakes are even higher when one is serving one's country while working for a team that thinks lying is only bad when someone gets a sexual favor out of it, commands others to lie for them, and destroy reputations and careers as a matter of sport. I can't even imagine the kind of hell Richard Clarke found himself in.

I hope that his wife and family are proud of him for coming forward and telling the world that the emperor is stark naked.

Julie

[Blue_Roses]

82. You should have watched Larry King last night

instead of FOX and then you would have heard it straight from Richard Clarke and not the "propoganted rubbish" FOX spews. He explained this in great detail. No news here.

[Robbien]

86. We have had many Bush&Co supporters posting here

saying the same thing you are, urgently pleading with us to believe in Bush and go along with the Bushbots in smearing Clarke. They request that we ignore that Bush&Co put us in harm's way.

I see your post agrees with that group.

[nomatrix]

104. Also include those

who are not from the US.

Michael Moore's movie "Bowling for Columbine" makes a very good point about gun attitudes here in the states as compared to those living across our borders and beyond. It's not owning a gun, it's the broadcast media that influences the fear.

I would use the same analogy for politics. If you have not experienced politics (that means paying attention) as a US citizen from Nixon to now, you really don't know the power of this office, and the damage it can do. If you have been on the receiving end of US policy, you don't need to go that far back.

[oldcoot]

102. What do you believe?

Do you think that the administration is telling the truth?

[maddezmom]

106. asked the same question, post #22.

Never got a response.... :shrug: