This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Fox news tape with Clarke

Discussion in 'Open Discussion (Work-safe)' started by ashlandbuck, Mar 25, 2004.

  1. ashlandbuck

    ashlandbuck Banned

    Fox News released a tape of an interview of Richard Clarke in which he is basically praising the Bush administration for coming into office and beginning to implement the plans to deal with terrorist. He also said that the Clinton administration simply sat on any info they had for years and basically did nothing..........What do you know! The guy has done a complete turn around since that 2002 press conference. I wonder why?
    Once again, buckeyeprof and woody's argument is shot down by the truth.
     
  2. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    That's a pretty grand statement. What exactly is the truth? People aren't allowed to change their assessment over time?

    And another thing, if I'm going to get criticized for bringing out an article from PBS, let's avoid a flood from Fox News on the other side...
     
  3. DEBuckeye

    DEBuckeye It ain't easy, bein' cheesy.

    This guy Clarke is just trying to grab his 15 minutes because he missed out on getting a bigger govt. job. And, what do you know? He's got a new book to promote. Coincidence? I don't think so.

    He's a lying jackass.
     
  4. DiHard

    DiHard Guest

    in all fairness i was watching the hearing live yesterday when this was covered by clarke. clarke basically said that he was asked to maximize the good bush had done and minimize the poor aspects during this 2002 news conference.....

    clarke denied he lied in saying what he said though.....he said he was just doing his job.....
     
  5. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    If he thought that Bush's policies were so dangerous, he should have put principle above his job, right? Apparently he wasn't willing to do that...why should I believe him now?

    And since there's a radio clip of Condeleeza Rice talking about Al Queda in 2000, his allegation that Rice had never heard of them is also bs.

    And there is a big difference between your PBS article and his Fox News article. Your PBS article was an analysis written by some likely biased PBS employee, not the transcript of a fricking press conference. If you can't tell the difference...
     
  6. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    I'm still not quite sure what you think this press conference proves...

    Actually, Nixon, the article I linked to was a fair and balanced assessment, and I found it very favorable to Reagan on the whole.
     
  7. Buckeye69

    Buckeye69 A.K.A. IBLEEDSCARLETANDGRAY

    Yeh, like Preparation H is very favorable, on the whole.
     
  8. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    That Clark lied, now or then.

    And I'm still not quite sure why you think a TRANSCRIPT of a press conference is a right wing source even if it comes from Fox News.
     
  9. Oh8ch

    Oh8ch Cognoscente of Omphaloskepsis Staff Member

    And now his job is selling a book.
     
  10. buckiprof

    buckiprof 21st Century Buckeye Man Staff Member

    ashlandbuck: As dihard pointed out, what would you expect Clarke to say about Bush when he was working for him. Specifically, Clarke said, "When you are on the staff of the president of the United States, you try to make his policies look as good as possible." Don't you think that has been the case for a long, long time?!? You must be intelligent enough to understand that! (I do agree with Nixon in that he should have put his principles first, if he thought Bush wasn't taking the terrorsit threat seriously, but it would be a rare individual (or independently wealthy) to do that.)

    BTW, the commission did back up Clarke's assertion that on 01/25/01 (5 days after the inauguration) he presented two planning documents from the Clinton administration that called for a series of steps to pressure al-qaida. That is significant since Powell claimed that Clinton aides extensively briefed the incoming Bush team about the al-qaida threat, but didn't provide any specific plans. Not until Sept. 4, 2001 did the Bush administration have a plan for al-qaida (according to Powell). Remember that when Bush was interviewed for the book "Bush at War" he said "I didn't feel a sense of urgency." Maybe the above timeline underscores that.
     
  11. ashlandbuck

    ashlandbuck Banned

    Use what ever reasoning you wish. His credibility is shot.
    People will know without any doubt that this guy is simply trying to sell his book.
    If he was lying then to save his job or if he is lying now to make a buck he is still a liar that obviously can't be trusted.
    I feel bad for you prof, you spent a lot of time on you post concerning Mr. Clarke and his allegations. Now there's no credibility to it.
    You should always wait and see if there are any remaining facts that could be aired before jumpimg on allegations such as these.
     
  12. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    Nope, not really. That's just wishful thinking.
    Well, the facts do seem to back him up, and the American people believe him. His book is number #1.
    I don't feel bad for buckeyeprof. Everybody except those who can't bear to see Bush get re-unelected knows that what Clarke is saying is the truth. We know because of people like David Kay, who basically said the same thing last month. We know that Bush wanted to take Saddam out immediately after 9/11, despite no connection with Iraq, because he said so in front of a Time Magazine reporter. The stuff Clarke is saying now is consistant to what we have been finding out over the past year.
    Again, the tape is not very informative, nor is it very damaging to Clarke. No respectable news source is going near it, mainly because Fox dug it up and gave it to the White House with the purpose of discrediting Clarke. So what? Government officials almost always feed us a bunch of crap - Look at Ari Fleischer, who made a career out of spewing crap and avoiding questions. Being a lying and devious person seems to be a prerequisite for landing a high level job in the Bush Administration.
     
  13. ashlandbuck

    ashlandbuck Banned

    Bush re-unelected?

    Bantling ravings.
     
  14. KillerNut

    KillerNut Banned

    Could we have done more?

    Probably, if we were doing all that we could, we wouldn't have had all of all of these new regulations since 9/11. Governement tends to move slow, when there are so many factors to consider. But once the horrible reality hit them, it didn't take long.

    Did anyone have any idea that we needed to do more?

    I really don't believe so. I remember writing a paper, which was basically based off of a conversation I had with a professor at Ohio State, saying that with the essetial end of the cold war, guerella style "Terrorist" attacks were the only real threat to our nation. I based it on how Rome fell, from barbarians to the north. Did I have any Idea that something like 9/11 was going to happen, no freaking way. That was what the FBI/CIA was for.

    I am sorry, but I do not believe this guy further than I could throw Adrien Clarke.
     
  15. DiHard

    DiHard Guest

    you know its like being a husband......your damned if you do and your damned if you dont....you cant win.....most especially when the media plays armchair know-it-alls...

    a president cant win....a leader cant win anymore....there are soooooo many people ready to rip apart every decision.....kinda like being the head coach at the osu.....

    anyone ever wonder why both guys go from salt and pepper to pure gray in no time?????
     

Share This Page