Which Clarke is lying?

The Washington Times ^ | 3/26/2004 | Slade Gorton/James R. Thompson

[kellynla]

RICHARD CLARKE: There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration ... In January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. [They] decided to ... vigorously pursue the existing policy [and] ... initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years.

[kellynla]

No wonder we were unprepared for 9/11 with this clown head of anti-terrorism! Clarke's book is just more garbage that should be in ash can in not the fiction section of book stores.

[kellynla]

And the link to the second part of the piece.
Clarke now...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040325-091448-2119r

[Jewels1091]

I read somewhere that the Congress intelligence committee is reviewing his testamony and they don't like what they see. They are thinking of calling him back in because his testamony at this commission and in their committee is 180 degrees different. They want to know which is the lie..

[Eva]

I don't know if it's possible, but I think that we should start a campaign to hold Clarke in contempt of Congress for giving public testimony that conflicted with the private testimony that he had given.

[bobo1]

Which Clarke is lying?

Stop! Stop!, You're both Right! Both Clarke's are lying.

Clarke wouldn't know the truth if it tap danced across his nose. He protected us from terrorism for eight years during the 'toon administration. Obviously he was a total incompetent and failure. Now we have to cover our rear end and shift our share of the blame so that we can appear lily-white as we are wallowing in a pig sty of poop.

Blessings, Bobo

[kellynla]

Yes, I think it's called perjury?...

[abyss123]

It seems to me that when you are IN this administration, you are required to toe the line . He is now out of the administration and free to speak his own beliefs. I.M.O.

[gov_bean_ counter]

The liberal apologists are saying Clarke was being loyal in his previous testimony.

But wasn't Richard Nixon being loyal also. As we have been told in the past the crime is in the cover up. If Clarke didn't believe what he was staying, why didn't he have the character to just walk away from it instead of covering up?

[Diogenesis]

NOW:

"I am NOT lying. Nope. Now, please buy my new book.
Why did I publish now? Because my book which lists the "soft sites" around America which Democrats hope will be hit by terrorists.
What do you mean I am biased?
OK, I AM a paid consultant and analyst for ABC, so maybe that is why they only report what I and the terrorists want.
OK, I admit my book publisher IS owned by the same company that owns CBS that did the puff piece on me.
Yes, my business partner, Roger Cressey, IS employed by NBC that only reports one side.
You got me again. My teaching partner at Harvard DOES work for Senator Kerry's campaign.
But you've got to believe me, I am not biased at all. "

---

FLASHBACK:

"Mr. Clarke, Mr. Clarke, please this is urgent.
We can take out Osama, now. Please answer!!! We have him in our sight."

Clarke: "Nope. Forgetaboutit. No big deal. They promise to only attack our computers."

---

PARTIAL LIST OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IGNORED BY CLARKE
AND CONDUCTED BY TERRORISTS LONG-SUPPORTED BY CBS

1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered

[Eva]

If what you are saying is true, he should have resigned rather than lie. Lying is never justified. The man has been a Democrat for years, as all his political donations indicate. Once a liar, always a liar.

[Eva]

Loyalty is no excuse for lying. Once a liar, it can be assumed that the man is always a liar and can never be trusted.

[Eva]

Remember Clarke composed his own news release, no one told him what to say. So either the man is a liar or he is senile.

[fml]

It seems to me that when you are IN this administration, you are required to toe the line . He is now out of the administration and free to speak his own beliefs. I.M.O.

Oh poppycock. He apparently has no beliefs of his own.

[kellynla]

Oh, puuulllllezzzzzz...Clarke Bar's book is just proof that he couldn't do his job for eight years and when the Bush administration saw the evidence and replaced him with a black woman he "lost it!" Let's not mince words here...he "juiced up" this fiction for the liberal publishers and now Clarke Bar has stepped in it and he's just been BUSTED! Next nutz & nougat case...

[plain talk]

Which Clarke is lying?

That's easy. The one who has the most to gain monetarily from lying.

[WHBates]

I could understand you point if we are talking about spin but if you believe what he is currently saying then he may have misstated material facts.

Spin may be calling a cloudy day a glorious relief from the harmful effects of the sun.

Stating that you increased spending on intelligence by five told by the president to solve to problem and reporting meetings and actions to accomplish this and later saying it wasn't true reveal material misrepresenting of facts. If done to the congress when under oath it is a crime.

[paulsy]

Do people really believe Clarke? I think Fox says 54% do. If so, which Clarke do they believe? The one who for two years and on numerous occasions said (with very specific detail) that Bush had attacked terrorism with everything in the arsenal? Or the one who later (with very specific detail) said completely the opposite?

The detailes given in each Clarke moment exactly contradict the details offered up by the other Clarke. His earlier statements aren't mere horn tooting or high-fiving. They are exact in their descriptions of programs that Clarke now says didn't exist.

Or do they believe the Clarke who claimed to vote Republican but who has contributed only to Democrat candidates over the years?

The Clarke who at once says that terrorism was Clinton's highest priority, while admitting that Clinton didn't "pass along a terrorist plan" to Bush after 8 YEARS in office? Or the Clarke who says terrorism was only a moderate priority for Bush, while admitting Bush changed from a passive to aggressive stance BEFORE 911 after being in office only 8 months? 8 years of little or nothing, then 8 months and a plan, and now Clarke says it was low on Bush's priority pole. Which Clarke will people believe?

Another thought. If what Clarke says is true about terrorism being a "high priority" under Clinton v. less important under Bush, what does this say about Clinton's ability to turn his "high priorities" into action? If true, that it was wasn’t really high priority for Bush, I wonder what Bush would do if the war on terror had actually become his highest priority? Would that be a terror war on steroids or something? I don't get Clarke.

Then Daschle comes along and says (and is shown saying over and over again in the Liberal media) that now Republicans are "making up lies" and "attacking" Clarke. But Clarke's own words are doing it. We're simply pointing out what he said.

Needless to mention, Clarke is making quite a bit of money off his book.

One thing that's also nauseating is watching how the media spins this. With the exception of Fox and CNN (CNN surprisingly), the pundits focus only on the juicy details of Clark's recent testimony, usually juxtaposed with snapshots of him hugging 911 victims, while it ignores the FACTS of his earlier statements and letters, these FACTS going directly against the "FACTS" (not motivated by money or political agendas, of COURSE) that he relayed in his testimony yesterday. According to the media, Bush "insists" on his "innocence" while Clarke "exploits Bush's weaknesses" - it's sickening to watch.

[kellynla]

"Do people really believe Clarke?" noooooo...
but the same crowd that believed Bubba wants to...

Anyone with half a brain would see right through Clarke Bar...what ain't chocolate and nougat is all NUTZ!!! LOL

I predict his book of fiction will be on the "Half-price" shelf by Labor Day if not sooner...

He has about as much credibility as a screen door in a submarine!

[cricket]

Well, I did offer that Clarke may suffer from 'multiple persomnality disorder' - and the more one reads his responses; the more I wonder, just how many 'Clarke's' there really are out there. . .

More to come, I am sure.

[Budge]

Richard Clark is a: - choose one -

a.) liar
b.) liar
c.) liar