|
<b>Tricks</b>
<i>It's all Clinton's fault</i>
Its not Clintons fault. Its not Bush's faults. It’s the terrorists fault.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<b> tecoyah</b>
<i> but explains in detail the string of ongoing failures of the current administration. He also explains that Clinton and Co. were the ones to begin the focus on anti-terrorism, and Bush and Co. failed to follow up, or "continue" the focus.</i>
True, Clarke mentions both administrations, but the press seems to be only focusing on Bush.
And Clinton had 8 years, starting in 1993 during the first WTC attack. And Clarke says in 2002 that nothing had been done under Clinton since 1998. In the Hearing yesterday, he said there was a plan under plan, so in one case he's lying or very mistaken,
" CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<b> Superbelt</b>
<i> When you are working for someone, you do not trash them. He was part of our government. Part of the administration. It was his job to release information in the way the Admin wanted it released.</i>
This is a total reversal of what he said in 2002. Is he lying in one case and now he's telling the truth?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<b> kutulu</b>
<i> Exactly, the Republicans know this and they know that it's the only way to discredit him. The funny thing is that a lot of the sheep in the county buy into this crap.
Is there any coinscidence that this came from Faux News?</I>
Discrediting Clarke…with his own words?! And for it being Fox News - <b> a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a <i>handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle.</i></b> meaning there were other reporters from other news agencies there. I saw on Britt Hume last night in a interview with Angle about how the FoxNews, asked the white house if they could release this transcript, and Fox was given the ok – and so were the other reporters. The other reporters who havent come forward.
<b>Lebell</b>
<i>*hears someone calling*
Ahem.
Anyway, Mr. Mojo, please add some comment and not just post an article.</i>
Sorry about that, I got busy at work
I find it odd, that Clarke is being praised at this hearing, and yet his past comments are not being used during this testimony now.
This is why i hate all media - they just want to sell the most sensational story they have, while leaving out the whole story - All media does it.
If Clarke is really doing this out of guilt, I hope he's giving all the money he gets from book sales to victims of 9/11.
Back to work...
__________________
When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression
|