Skip to comments.
9/11 Families Livid at Clarke's 'Profiteering'
NewsMax ^
| March 28, 2004
| Staff
Posted on 03/28/2004 9:06:19 AM PST by kennedy
Thirty-two family members of 9/11 victims have signed a blistering open letter to former terrorism czar Richard Clarke, accusing him of "profiteering" from the 9/11 tragedy by writing a book and acting to "divide America" with his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
"The notion of profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us," the 9/11 familles wrote in a letter published in Sunday's New York Post.
"We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 Commission could be used for political gain, especially now, with the presidential election less than eight months away."
The 9/11 families complained:
"Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales.
"As family and friends of those killed on 9/11, we believe it inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to profit from and politicize 9/11, and further divide America, by his testimony before the 9/11 Commission."
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911families; anger; bookdeal; clarke; profiteering; richardclarke
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
I am sure that these 9/11 families will be interviewed on all of the morning talk shows tomorrow, right after the weather reports about hell freezing over.
1
posted on
03/28/2004 9:06:19 AM PST
by
kennedy
To: kennedy
Evidently, these are not the families belonging to the Tides (Kerry zillions) supported group. I salute these people for taking a stand on this. The other group(s) have lost my respect--and sympathy.
2
posted on
03/28/2004 9:08:36 AM PST
by
MizSterious
(First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
To: kennedy
Not a one...you can bank on it:)
3
posted on
03/28/2004 9:08:48 AM PST
by
international american
(Support our troops!! Send Kerry back to Boston!!!!)
To: kennedy
4
posted on
03/28/2004 9:09:06 AM PST
by
samtheman
To: kennedy
You've got it!
5
posted on
03/28/2004 9:09:29 AM PST
by
RAY
(Right or wrong, it is my country!)
To: kennedy
Huzzah to these brave and honest people!!
6
posted on
03/28/2004 9:11:16 AM PST
by
EggsAckley
(....."I see the idiot is here"............)
To: international american
Of course not. The media has already chosen the families of the victims that will be used as the mouthpieces for the entire group, and I assure you, the voices in the article above are not amongst them.
To: kennedy
"I am sure that these 9/11 families will be interviewed on all of the morning talk shows tomorrow, right after the weather reports about hell freezing over."
Yes, Sir! You are right on the money about this!
I didn't hear Timmy Russert say anything about this to Clarke this morning, and he had the twit on for the entire hour......
8
posted on
03/28/2004 9:20:17 AM PST
by
Howie66
("America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.")
To: MizSterious
I don't know why you are surprised at the actions of some families who lost relatives on 9/11. I refuse to call these families victims, as the real victims are the ones who died. They early on rallied and organized to bleed money from the taxpayers. Why, even distant relatives got a settlement if they were the closest family member. I know why our government had to make the settlements, but I cannot excuse these greedy people. And that includes Mrs. "Let's roll" who tried to patent the phrase to exploit her husband's death.
9
posted on
03/28/2004 9:21:46 AM PST
by
Conservababe
(I calls it like I sees it.)
To: kennedy
Well, the six "loser" families are still available for "interviews". So we can expect to see them for a few more months.
These 32 family members are all just the usual mean-spirited conservative malcontents...
10
posted on
03/28/2004 9:23:35 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(50.3% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks (subject to a final count).)
To: kennedy
Clarke's answer was they should "read his book." Not that he's trying to sell a book. Believe me, Clarke should be John Kerry's son. Did you see him DENY he was passed over for the Homeland security job, even though he "was asked " and said "you can consider me if you want" and even though he had to admit he "was interviewed" for the job. He turned it all into the passive as if they were begging him to take that crummy job.
One of his most weaselish answers had to be that he put himself in charge of cyber security because he was "so frustrated" with no one listening to him on counterterrorism, that he "DIDN'T WANT TO WORK ON COUNTERTERRORISM ANYMORE" and took himself out of it completely, conveniently making him unresponsible for 9-11.
Another tactic was to state that "I DID" every counterterrorism action taken by the Bush administration, to deny that anyone told him to do it, and to claim that all instructions followed his suggestions - So that Richard Clarke and not the White House he was part of gets credit for every single thing they did. Outrageous.
11
posted on
03/28/2004 9:24:28 AM PST
by
Williams
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: kennedy
If you could take a vote of all the members of the 9-11 victim families --- while setting aside any partisan political views they might hold --- and ask them what they think of Clarke's book, I believe a majority would agree with what these 32 families have said in their letter.
Even the co-chair of the 9-11 commission, Democrat Lee Hamiliton, said the release of Clarke's book just before the hearings started, did not help what the 9-11 commission was trying to accomplish.
13
posted on
03/28/2004 9:28:40 AM PST
by
Reagan Man
(The choice is clear. Reelect BUSH-CHENEY !)
To: Howie66
Russert did ask him about it. Clarke said they should read his book (thereby assuming they hadn't). Then he said he "Always" planned to donate "substantial" money to the families (liar) but has to keep some because the WH is going to destroy his career. The guy is real scum. And note that his whole point now is that he opposed the Iraq war. OK. Big Deal.
14
posted on
03/28/2004 9:31:54 AM PST
by
Williams
To: kennedy
Are you trying to insinuate that the major news networks are biased towards the Demorat Party? I'm shocked you can think such a thing! < / useful idiot >
15
posted on
03/28/2004 9:38:28 AM PST
by
TheDon
(John Kerry, self proclaimed war criminal, Democratic Presidential nominee)
To: Williams
Then I guess that I missed it, because I didn't hear Russert mention the fact that some of the family members were upset about him profiteering, rather the comment made by Frist....
In either case, you are correct in your assessment of Clarke. He has shown that he is a low down snake, and should be drawn and quartered.
16
posted on
03/28/2004 9:42:41 AM PST
by
Howie66
("America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.")
To: kennedy
HOLD YOUR BREATH TO SEE THIS ALL OVER AP/CNN/ABC/REUTERS ALL OVER THE WORLD PRESS!!!!!!!
Like when one family complained about Bush's ad!
Turning blue...
The Scheisters have hijacked the workd press.
These guys are much more dangerous than the terrorists. They have truely destroyed the free world and converted it into a GULAG of BRAINWASHING PUBLICATIONS - called REUTERS / AP etc.
To: Williams
Good post.
Clarke is a psycho. The more I think about it, the more I am certain that the "blank look" that Clarke saw on Rice's face was actually Rice's, "Good Lord. We gotta get rid of this creep", look.
To: Lancey Howard
Who do the families of the 9/11 victims think that they are any how? Have they decided that they are little gods?
What made them an athority on any thing? Anyone know?
19
posted on
03/28/2004 10:03:31 AM PST
by
tessalu
To: kennedy
Kristen Breitweiser and the rest of that small group of scumbag "9/11 Families" who signed on with the Democrats and agreed to urinate all over the memories of their alleged "loved ones" in order to push a political agenda won't say a word about Clarke peddling his book for profit.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson