Hannity CUTTING AND PASTING Clarke responses!

[DancingBear]

Did anyone catch his show today? (around 4:30 or so, Eastern time).

I was sitting in the parking lot of a Food Lion with Dan and Kate the dogs, as a realtor was showing my house and I took the dogs while the folks came through. While D & K ate rawhide chews, I listened to the slime while killing time.

Aside from his lunatic statement that Lehman and Thompson "really took Clarke apart", he proceeded to do the following: he led with an EXACT soundbite from the aforementioned, then took Clarkes response and, via editing, took bits from the beginning and bits from the end to come up with a (voila!) brand new response!

I was floored. Needless to say the bastards are are the run, but has it come to this? They can't even allow an honest response to come across their airwaves without doctoring it?

I'm curious if anyone else heard this. I watched all of Clarkes testimony, and I KNOW those responses were doctored. The question is: will anyone else?

[BootinUp]

1. We need a disclaimer in big letters

preferably over the little American flag in the upperleft on Faux News. And on the radio they should have to precede all audio with a disclaimer "Warning content may have been modified for political purposes."

[girl gone mad]

2. Don't people ever get tired..

of being misled by these goons day after day?

[Skittles]

14. I don't understand it either

it's like listening to people talk about "reality TV" - f***ing painful.

[kaitykaity]

3. Newtie is all in a snit, so we must be getting close to the bone.

And they're pulling back Clinton.

Oh, this is fun.

[Kahuna]

13. I caught a few minutes of Newt. Seems old Newtie has a new job..

Bash Clarke.

[Mike Niendorff]

4. If this is the case

then Richard Clarke just might want to retain a lawyer who has experience in bringing very large LIBEL suits.


MDN

[murielm99]

6. It would be nice if the FCC actually did its job

and looked into this, too.

Oh, I forgot. They only worry about boobs and naughty words.

[kaitykaity]

7. Libel laws don't apply to public figures.

Thom Hartmann explained it pretty well on his show either yesterday or today. (Check the archive here: whiterose.)

[Mike Niendorff]

9. I believe that's incorrect

The bar is set a fair bit higher when it comes to public figures (see NY Times v. Sullivan, IIRC), but recourse to libel is still available when the situation warrants it.

Furthermore, I think Clarke would be wise to start hitting back on this ASAP -- even if the legal waters are murky -- so as to (1) shine a spotlight onto the lies and distortions that the RW smear-machine is using, and (2) to put them on notice that such dishonest behavior will be met with an aggressive legal response.


MDN

[kaitykaity]

10. Technically you are correct, however,

it's nearly impossible to prove libel under those laws. When a person enters the public domain they are fair game. (Like I said, Harmann explained it, either today or yesterday, I don't remember which.)

I will also agree that an aggressive response is warranted. I also think Mr. Clarke is up for the challenge.

[sadiesworld]

11. You are correct.

The bar is higher but it can be done. If it wasn't possible celebrities would never win their lawsuits against the Enquirer, etc. But sometimes they do. The burden is much higher, the lies must be malicious, willful,etc

[Cary]

12. Incorrect. Libel laws do apply, but there is a higher standard under

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). You must show actual malice.

[fob]

17. Wasn't Clarke testifying as an American citizen and FORMER

public official? If Clarke's testimony comments were hannitized, then those are the remarks of a private citizen, NOT a public official.

[kaitykaity]

18. It's not public official, it's public "figure".

He's got a book, he's on the shows, etc., so he's a
public figure.

[jean]

5. Too bad the dogs didn't have an extra chew for you to gnaw on!

[librechik]

8. read about it this am at Talking Points Memo

here's a snippet about the snipping:

"Here's how Fox News described Lehmann's comment ...

"You've got a real credibility problem," John Lehman, former Navy secretary under President Reagan, told Clarke, calling the witness "an active partisan selling a book."
Clarke responded: "I don't think it's a question of morality at all, I think it's a question of politics."



Now, get a load of this Clarke guy! Okay, wait, don't get a load of him yet. Lehmann's broadside was harsh enough. Did Fox accurately portray what Lehmann said? I'll let you decide.

Okay, now ... get a load of this Clarke guy! Lehmann accuses him of all this terrible stuff. And this character Clarke comes back with, "Hey buddy, morality, shmorality. It's all politics to me!"

Hmmm. Actually, that wasn't his response. That was his response to a completely different exchange, which came later ...

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?
CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...


THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.

CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story. The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them. In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did. I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.

THOMPSON: But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book?

CLARKE: No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect.

THOMPSON: Well, what it suggests to me is that there is one standard of candor and morality for White House special assistants and another standard of candor and morality for the rest of America. I don't get that.

CLARKE: I don't think it's a question of morality at all. I think it's a question of politics.

THOMPSON: Well, I... (APPLAUSE)

THOMPSON: I'm not a Washington insider. I've never been a special assistant in the White House. I'm from the Midwest. So I think I'll leave it there..."


Hmmmm-- They can't quote Clarke without monkeying with the quote, can't let Condi testify under oath...gee, they seem to have a little problem with credibility, don't they?

[RebelOne]

15. Yes, I heard it. What an a**hole he is!!!

[Cat Atomic]

16. Look at it this way.

Hannity has to straight-out lie to his far-right fans to get their support on this issue. Not stretch the truth, not spin, but LIE.

And he's STILL only got 55% of them convinced that Clarke is just a bitter ex-employee (as evidenced by his own poll).