Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on March 26, 2004, 12:15:42 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040326/pl_afp/us_attacks_clarke_book
The publisher had brought forward the book's release by a week to take advantage of Clarke's appearance Sunday on the prime-time news show "60 Minutes" and his testimony Wednesday before the commission investigating the September 11 attacks.
As of Friday, "Against All Enemies" was at the top of the Amazon.com bestseller list, while the US book chain Borders said it was the company's number-one title for the week.
"We took a very strong stock position, so have been able to keep up with the demand based on the stock we have already in our pipeline," said Borders spokeswoman Jenie Dahlmann.
"The appearance on '60 Minutes,' and then the fact that he was testifying mid-week before the 9/11 commission, really made it critical for us to take a strong stand on the book," Dahlmann aid.
-
Clark should donate all his profits to the victims of 9/11/01, not just give them an apology for his poor job.
IMHO he's a smart opportunis,t and oh by the way CBS is owned by the same company as the books publisher.
kinda scummy if you ask me
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
The publisher had brought forward the book's release by a week to take advantage of Clarke's appearance Sunday on the prime-time news show "60 Minutes" and his testimony Wednesday before the commission investigating the September 11 attacks.
Are you aware that the WH had the book for three months prior to it's public release? They had to clear it for publication because of Mr. Clarks previous position. The book's release was pushed back because of this.
I believe they actualy did a 'rope-a-dope' in not letting on that they were aware of the content of the book, well duh, and that they wanted to hear what Mr. Clarke had to say before having Condi go back to the commission to defend herself and the administration...in closed session where her 'testimony' will not be heard by the American people...hell, they haven't even kept a written record of her other 'closed door' sessions...ain't THAT strange?
Now, there are other books in the works by current and former WH staff and that these books are getting the fasttrack for release.
The publishers are starting to see that their return on investment for these kind of books is much more lucritive for them. Here's an example of what Mr. Clarke's book cost for promotion vs. Hannity's book. Note the initial release numbers, if they were expecting any massive 'bulk' purchases that number would have been more inline of Hannity's. The book is already in it's fifth printing and still very hard to find in small markets as well as large.
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
by Hannity, Sean
Adv. Budget: 300,000
Initial Print Run: 300,000
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
by Clarke, Richard A.
Adv. Budget: 35,000
Initial Print Run: 200,000
Source: Title Source 2 (Baker and Taylor's online ordering database/subscription only)
My comment...
This, a more than ten fold return on investment, will not be the norm but given the initial sales numbers in the few days prior to his public revelations in front of the commission and the American people the indicators in the publishing biz show a more than substantial interest in these kind of publications.
IMO, for all you Bushies, this is where he has failed you and your party. It has become way too easy to profit from this administrations gaffes...more to come, you can bet on it.
-
Are you aware that the WH had the book for three months prior to it's public release? They had to clear it for publication because of Mr. Clarks previous position. The book's release was pushed back because of this.
Nice try.... many books are at the WH this long or longer prior to approval, regardless of the administration in power. Oops, you "accidently" omitted that, huh?
Hannity differs in that he is not a former administration employee who was forced out for incompetence.
Hannity hasn't been shown to contradict his book while under oath, another difference.
As for gaffes, well everyone makes mistakes. Kerry's mistakes make him look like a clown..the current administrations mistakes?
hell, they haven't even kept a written record of her other 'closed door' sessions...ain't THAT strange?
Is it possible... just possible that they are doing this due to national security issues? If you don't think it's likely, that it is all a vast right wing conspiracy, I suggest you put on your foil hat and watch out for black helicoptors!
OTOH, as far as marketing goes, this is a capitalist society. If Clark wants to time the release of his fictional book in an effort to benefit from current events, that's just sound marketing. I don't see how one can hold that against him.
-
he is deffinately timing the release to make more money with his book.
I don't see this as any more opertunistic than diverting resourses from the war on terrorism, to start an unrelated war for the purpose of funeling money to your bussines partners.
btw- did anyone else catch rummy on PBS last night? his response to clarkes allegations (the ones about rummy saying they should bomb iraq instead because the "have better targets")
rummy says he doesn't think he was even at the meeting on 9/12, and that he has only met clarke 2 or 3 times in his life.
doesn't it seem odd that if an administration is actually making terrorism an urgent priority (which clarke said they did not), that the secratary of deffence had only met our highest official on anti-terrorism 2 or 3 times?
not just 2 or 3 times in the 9 months before 9/11, but in his whole life. rummys words, heard them right from his own mouth.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
he is deffinately timing the release to make more money with his book.
I don't see this as any more opertunistic than diverting resourses from the war on terrorism, to start an unrelated war for the purpose of funeling money to your bussines partners.
btw- did anyone else catch rummy on PBS last night? his response to clarkes allegations (the ones about rummy saying they should bomb iraq instead because the "have better targets")
rummy says he doesn't think he was even at the meeting on 9/12, and that he has only met clarke 2 or 3 times in his life.
doesn't it seem odd that if an administration is actually making terrorism an urgent priority (which clarke said they did not), that the secratary of deffence had only met our highest official on anti-terrorism 2 or 3 times?
not just 2 or 3 times in the 9 months before 9/11, but in his whole life. rummys words, heard them right from his own mouth.
I thought Clarke was "Promoted" to the head of the Cyber Terrorism division by the Bush administration. You're saying he was the top anti-terrorism official for the WH while GWB was in office?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Nice try.... many books are at the WH this long or longer prior to approval, regardless of the administration in power. Oops, you "accidently" omitted that, huh?
That was in response to Muck's comment about the timing coinciding with Mr. Clarke's public appearance, the book would have been released during the primaries...nice try though.
Hannity differs in that he is not a former administration employee who was forced out for incompetence. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, all those other books from administration insiders showing GWB is a more favorable light sure are doing well, huh? Is your incompetence jab your opinion or did you just use the spin from the SH?
Hannity hasn't been shown to contradict his book while under oath, another difference. [/QUOTE]
The only real contradictory information of note is from a background piece that was requested from the administration to ,paraphrasing here, I don't have the quote from the transcript handy at the moment > ' bring to light the administrations successes and minimize it's deficencies". Now, if the POTUS or a high ranking member of his cabnet asks for a glowing report that will be attributed to an 'unnamed asministration source' and then they use it to feed to the press, who's the 'liar'. Keep in mind the vendictiveness of GWB towards people who don't march lockstep with him or his policies.
As for gaffes, well everyone makes mistakes. Kerry's mistakes make him look like a clown..the current administrations mistakes?[/QUOTE]
Nice diversion, Mr. Kerry has yet to make the gaffes on the scale of GWB's...people haven't died or been turned out as NOC's by the actions of him or his people.
Is it possible... just possible that they are doing this due to national security issues? If you don't think it's likely, that it is all a vast right wing conspiracy, I suggest you put on your foil hat and watch out for black helicoptors! [/QUOTE]
Ummm...meybe, we'll most likely never know since we the people won't hear what our leaders decide to keep secret whether it's a national security issue or politcal survival issue. I tend to think that this matter is of the latter rather than the former.
Nice try to suggest I'm a tinfoiler, you learned from the GOP's talking points well....but your trying to attack both on the personal front as well as the facts, the WH should try the same.
OTOH, as far as marketing goes, this is a capitalist society. If Clark wants to time the release of his fictional book in an effort to benefit from current events, that's just sound marketing. I don't see how one can hold that against him. [/QUOTE]
Ahh, much ado about nothing....I agree, I was just trying to waken Muck to the fact that this IS capitalisim working....just not for his side < smiley >
edit because of my fumble fingers.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
he is deffinately timing the release to make more money with his book.
I don't see this as any more opertunistic than diverting resourses from the war on terrorism, to start an unrelated war for the purpose of funeling money to your bussines partners.
btw- did anyone else catch rummy on PBS last night? his response to clarkes allegations (the ones about rummy saying they should bomb iraq instead because the "have better targets")
rummy says he doesn't think he was even at the meeting on 9/12, and that he has only met clarke 2 or 3 times in his life.
doesn't it seem odd that if an administration is actually making terrorism an urgent priority (which clarke said they did not), that the secratary of deffence had only met our highest official on anti-terrorism 2 or 3 times?
not just 2 or 3 times in the 9 months before 9/11, but in his whole life. rummys words, heard them right from his own mouth.
Cheney mentioned that Clarke "was kept out of the loop" too funny. The house of cards is about to crumble.:D
-
if I told you I think "Hundreds Will Die" in the next terrorist attack, can I have Clarke's job? Or at least his salary? Can I then point fingers and scream (write a book) "I Told You SO!!!" when it happens...
clarke is worse than the typical ambulance chasin attorney you see on every other commercial, making his book money on the corpses of the 9/11 dead
-
right, if he had said that Clinton had left the conutry unprepared and that there was no way Bush could get us prepared in time, you'd be worshiping the man, and listing his credentials as proof of his honesty.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
clarke is worse than the typical ambulance chasin attorney you see on every other commercial, making his book money on the corpses of the 9/11 dead
Geez, you could have saved all that typing by just saying that he's just a Republican.
-
Hannity is a lying sack-o-crap.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
right, if he had said that Clinton had left the conutry unprepared and that there was no way Bush could get us prepared in time, you'd be worshiping the man, and listing his credentials as proof of his honesty.
which was the case - he worked for Clinton for EIGHT YEARS before he worked for Bush for EIGHT MONTHS prior to 9/11, who should have done what now?
clarke is still a cya 20/20 hindsight expert, book mongering potato spitting on the dead of 9/11
-
so anyone who tells you what you want to hear is right. and those who bother you with facts are lying librals. I get it. thats way simpler than thinking it over and maybe even, (gasp) changing your mind and realise that bush has fooled you.
-
Midnight Targut is a lying piece of crap. He also murders women and children.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.....
-
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.
-
lol _Schadenfreude_ :D
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
"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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/)
now who's changing their story?
-
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
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.
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.