Author Topic: Tell me again how Clarkes not just hyping his book.. (Read 745 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 26, 2004, 04:24:16 PM »

It's simple logic.

What's all the rage these days?

What sells all the books?

What kind of idiot wouldn't make up this kind of crap to sell more books?

midnight Target · « **Reply #16 on:** March 26, 2004, 04:25:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Midnight Targut is a lying piece of crap. He also murders women and children.

Did I say something bad about your hero?

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #17 on:** March 27, 2004, 01:31:47 AM »

Is there going to be a AH suicide watch started up in November in case George W Bush loses the election?

I think that some posters might take it a little hard and may need a little help.....

MrLars · « **Reply #18 on:** March 27, 2004, 05:14:26 AM »

In the end I hope that there will be an inquiry into the question of whether Mr. Clarke did commit purjury. His defence would surley contain more damning stuff. A 30 year WH and Gov Vet should be smart enough to have an ace in the hole.

BTW, Y'all hear that Condi now claims that she 'misspoke' regarding her claim of no prior knowledge of terrorists possibily using planes as bombs? Seems that when a Rep makes false claims it's misspeaking these days...hehehe.

This show is gonna be great, but enthusiasm must be tempered with the knowledge that at the root of all this politcal posturing is a tragedy that has brought so much grief to so many Americans as well as other nationalities.

Nilsen · « **Reply #19 on:** March 27, 2004, 05:40:29 AM »

lol _Schadenfreude_

Eagler · « **Reply #20 on:** March 27, 2004, 06:20:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Is there going to be a AH suicide watch started up in November in case George W Bush loses the election?

I think that some posters might take it a little hard and may need a little help.....

can you say GW LANDSLIDE? when you turn the tv off, that is what is being talked about, not mini-jfk

capt. apathy · « **Reply #21 on:** March 27, 2004, 06:34:49 AM »

depends who you talk to I guess. of the people I know personally (well enough to ask 'who ya voting for') only my sister-in-law, and a couple of older people from church plan on voting for W this go round. 10 or so that told me they voted for him last go-round said they felt betrayed and would vote for anybody who ran against him.

not at all a scientific poll. just people I know.

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #22 on:** March 27, 2004, 07:17:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
can you say GW LANDSLIDE? when you turn the tv off, that is what is being talked about, not mini-jfk

Well I'd have agreed with you six months ago, but right now I'd say that Bush has no more than about a 30% chance of winning.

Wonder what would happen if George W choked on another pretzel, Cheney had a heart attack and Colin Powell was talked into standing?

NUKE · « **Reply #23 on:** March 27, 2004, 08:17:53 AM »

Clarke is going to be in a little trouble in my opinion. His lies are going to be revealed when his 2002 testimony is declassified so everyone will be able to see his comments then and now.

This will be interesting to see.

Quote

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a fiery speech today on the Senate floor.

The Tennessee Republican said that Clarke was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center

He noted that Clarke's testimony in 2002 was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration" and that Clarke had praised the administration's successes to reporters in 2002.

Though Clarke has tried to play down his earlier praise of Bush, Frist said, "Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied to Congress."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/26/143826.shtml

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #24 on:** March 27, 2004, 11:52:27 AM »

Well he's not going to be charged with perjury - can you imagine his lawyer cross examining Rice, Bush and Cheney about exactly they did before during and after 9/11 - never going to happen in a million years.

NUKE · « **Reply #25 on:** March 27, 2004, 12:11:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Well he's not going to be charged with perjury - can you imagine his lawyer cross examining Rice, Bush and Cheney about exactly they did before during and after 9/11 - never going to happen in a million years.

what Rice, Bush and Cheney did has nothing to do with Clarke's lies under oath.

AKIron · « **Reply #26 on:** March 27, 2004, 12:22:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Is there going to be a AH suicide watch started up in November in case George W Bush loses the election?

I think that some posters might take it a little hard and may need a little help.....

I'm still wondering if we'll see a mass exodus of idiot movie stars when he wins.

AKIron · « **Reply #27 on:** March 27, 2004, 12:26:17 PM »

If unpreparedness is to blame for 9/11 then there is no one more responsible than Bill Clinton. Personally, I don't blame him for that.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #28 on:** March 27, 2004, 01:17:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Clarke is going to be in a little trouble in my opinion. His lies are going to be revealed when his 2002 testimony is declassified so everyone will be able to see his comments then and now.

This will be interesting to see.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a fiery speech today on the Senate floor.

The Tennessee Republican said that Clarke was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center

He noted that Clarke's testimony in 2002 was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration" and that Clarke had praised the administration's successes to reporters in 2002.

Though Clarke has tried to play down his earlier praise of Bush, Frist said, "Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied to Congress."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/26/143826.shtml

Quote

Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances.

from msnbc

now who's changing their story?

NUKE · « **Reply #29 on:** March 27, 2004, 01:36:57 PM »

Don't worry about what Clarke has said while not under oath.... which one is the lie and which one is the truth? Clarke is a proven liar on the subject, just not proven guilty of perjury....yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Quote

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.
Quote

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.