Religions > Atheism > Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Sep 2006 10:44:00 AM |
| Object: |
Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They
Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how
many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, "Why did you
fire ***** Clarke?" By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most
concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking
office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff
and removed him from the Principals meeting.
Since 2001, Wallace has interview the top national security officials
from the Bush administration - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley - 42
times. According to a Lexis-Nexis database search, he never asked any
of them why Clarke was demoted.
The one time he brought up Clarke's name with a Bush administration
official - during a March 28, 2004 interview with Rumsfeld - he
repeatedly attempted to smear Clarke as political motivated and
untrustworthy. Some excerpts:
WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure
out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said
and of apparent contradictions in his story - is he telling the
truth, or is he pushing an agenda.
WALLACE: Let's switch, if we can, to a different aspect of this.
There is a move now by congressional Republican leaders to declassify
Clarke's testimony before one of their panels in 2002 to see whether
or not it contradicts what he is telling the commission and what he
writes in his book now. As I understand it, the Pentagon has to approve
any such declassification. Do you think it's a good idea?
WALLACE: Do you worry at all that, whether it's the debate over *****
Clarke's credibility, his charges, whether it's the fact that
we're in the political season, that the important work you say the
commission could do is going to get caught up in partisanship?
After Clinton brought up the issue, Wallace claimed "we asked" and
shot back "Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, Sir?"
------------------------------------------
"I've reminded the prime minister - the American people, Mr. Prime
Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the
United States and America would have a close relationship."
-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
.
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 05:49:03 PM |
|
|
<goddamnedliarbush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159199040.011685.203650@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They
Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how
many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, "Why did you
fire ***** Clarke?" By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most
concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking
office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff
and removed him from the Principals meeting.
Opps, Bush didn't demote him, he acceded to Clarke's request for transfer.
Thanks for playing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 06:00:44 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
<goddamnedliarbush@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159199040.011685.203650@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They
Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how
many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, "Why did you
fire ***** Clarke?" By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most
concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking
office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff
and removed him from the Principals meeting.
Opps, Bush didn't demote him, he acceded to Clarke's request for transfer.
Thanks for playing.
Ooops! Bush did demote him. The post had been cabinet level. Bush
changed it so that it wasn't.
Thanks for playing.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 01:58:06 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1159199040.011685.203650@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year
old *****?
Jealousy. They can't brag that they got blown in the Oval Office. Best they
can manage is a trannie hooker in Crackville.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people
who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 04:51:35 PM |
|
|
Doc Smartass wrote:
goddamnedliarbush@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1159199040.011685.203650@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year
old *****?
Jealousy. They can't brag that they got blown in the Oval Office. Best they
can manage is a trannie hooker in Crackville.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people
who must use the words. - Philip K. *****
Come on Doc you can do better than the MOVEON line, can't you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stonej" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 10:50:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They
Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how
many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, "Why did you
fire ***** Clarke?" By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most
concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking
office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff
and removed him from the Principals meeting.
Since 2001, Wallace has interview the top national security officials
from the Bush administration - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley - 42
times. According to a Lexis-Nexis database search, he never asked any
of them why Clarke was demoted.
The one time he brought up Clarke's name with a Bush administration
official - during a March 28, 2004 interview with Rumsfeld - he
repeatedly attempted to smear Clarke as political motivated and
untrustworthy. Some excerpts:
WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure
out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said
and of apparent contradictions in his story - is he telling the
truth, or is he pushing an agenda.
WALLACE: Let's switch, if we can, to a different aspect of this.
There is a move now by congressional Republican leaders to declassify
Clarke's testimony before one of their panels in 2002 to see whether
or not it contradicts what he is telling the commission and what he
writes in his book now. As I understand it, the Pentagon has to approve
any such declassification. Do you think it's a good idea?
WALLACE: Do you worry at all that, whether it's the debate over *****
Clarke's credibility, his charges, whether it's the fact that
we're in the political season, that the important work you say the
commission could do is going to get caught up in partisanship?
After Clinton brought up the issue, Wallace claimed "we asked" and
shot back "Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, Sir?"
------------------------------------------
"I've reminded the prime minister - the American people, Mr. Prime
Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the
United States and America would have a close relationship."
-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
Fox is trying to divert attention away from Bush's failures in Iraq and
on the war on
terror by trying to shift some of the blame to Clinton so the
republicans won't look
so bad in the November election.
That is what this is all about, anyone who suggest otherwise is a fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 11:39:17 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Fox is trying to divert attention away from Bush's failures in Iraq and
on the war on terror by trying to shift some of the blame to Clinton so
the republicans won't look so bad in the November election.
Well, there you go accusing Bush of what Clinton did...
That is what this is all about, anyone who suggest otherwise is a fool.
Oh yes, the ol' "proof by assertion".
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat :-" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
26 Sep 2006 07:07:01 AM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2006 08:50:12 -0700, "stonej" <stonej@mail.lib.msu.edu>
puked:
Fox is trying to divert attention away from Bush's failures in Iraq and
on the war on
terror by trying to shift some of the blame to Clinton so the
republicans won't look
so bad in the November election.
That is what this is all about, anyone who suggest otherwise is a fool.
All they have to do is REMIND people about Clinton so the Republicans
won't look so bad...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 10:59:13 AM |
|
|
stonej wrote:
Fox is trying to divert attention away from Bush's failures in Iraq and
on the war on
terror by trying to shift some of the blame to Clinton so the
republicans won't look
so bad in the November election.
That is what this is all about, anyone who suggest otherwise is a fool.
ding! ding! ding! they got no successes to point to so there strategy
is to somehow divert blame for the mess the country is on a man who
hasn't held public office in 6 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IranianSwine" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year oldblowjob? |
25 Sep 2006 04:49:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
stonej wrote:
Fox is trying to divert attention away from Bush's failures in Iraq and
on the war on
terror by trying to shift some of the blame to Clinton so the
republicans won't look
so bad in the November election.
That is what this is all about, anyone who suggest otherwise is a fool.
ding! ding! ding! they got no successes to point to so there strategy
is to somehow divert blame for the mess the country is on a man who
hasn't held public office in 6 years.
Ding ding. It appeared as if he did it himself. He was asked one
question and he stepped into it like it was Tarbaby.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 11:07:51 AM |
|
|
ding! ding! ding! they got no successes to point to so there strategy
is to somehow divert blame for the mess the country is on a man who
hasn't held public office in 6 years.
When Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney discuss Iraq amongst themselves, do you
think they say, "God, what a screw up!" or, do they congratulate
themselves on how well things are going?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 11:41:39 AM |
|
|
wrote:
When Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney discuss Iraq amongst themselves, do you
think they say, "God, what a screw up!" or, do they congratulate
themselves on how well things are going?
Obviously the latter; why would they be upset about doing so well?
Clinton, OTOH, is still frantically trying to cover up his screw-ups.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
26 Sep 2006 09:00:01 AM |
|
|
Ubiquitous wrote:
debdav1@comcast.net wrote:
When Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney discuss Iraq amongst themselves, do you
think they say, "God, what a screw up!" or, do they congratulate
themselves on how well things are going?
Obviously the latter; why would they be upset about doing so well?
*blink*blink*blink
Wow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 04:34:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:41:39 -0500, (Ubiquitous)
wrote:
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
By what possible standard can you consider the situation in Iraq to be
a victory for the US?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 11:12:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
ding! ding! ding! they got no successes to point to so there strategy
is to somehow divert blame for the mess the country is on a man who
hasn't held public office in 6 years.
When Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney discuss Iraq amongst themselves, do you
think they say, "God, what a screw up!" or, do they congratulate
themselves on how well things are going?
Their conversations probably go more along these lines, "Damn! My stock
options in Halliburton doubled AGAIN this week. If this keeps up they
will out-earn the kickbacks I'm getting from dad's friends in the oil
company. That reminds me, gotta get that estate tax repealed quick, dad
can't have that much time and can't risk parting with any of his money,
you know to pay for schools and roads, heh, heh..."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IranianSwine" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year oldblowjob? |
25 Sep 2006 04:48:37 PM |
|
|
stonej wrote:
goddamnedliarb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They
Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how
many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, "Why did you
fire ***** Clarke?" By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most
concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking
office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff
and removed him from the Principals meeting.
Since 2001, Wallace has interview the top national security officials
from the Bush administration - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley - 42
times. According to a Lexis-Nexis database search, he never asked any
of them why Clarke was demoted.
The one time he brought up Clarke's name with a Bush administration
official - during a March 28, 2004 interview with Rumsfeld - he
repeatedly attempted to smear Clarke as political motivated and
untrustworthy. Some excerpts:
WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure
out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said
and of apparent contradictions in his story - is he telling the
truth, or is he pushing an agenda.
WALLACE: Let's switch, if we can, to a different aspect of this.
There is a move now by congressional Republican leaders to declassify
Clarke's testimony before one of their panels in 2002 to see whether
or not it contradicts what he is telling the commission and what he
writes in his book now. As I understand it, the Pentagon has to approve
any such declassification. Do you think it's a good idea?
WALLACE: Do you worry at all that, whether it's the debate over *****
Clarke's credibility, his charges, whether it's the fact that
we're in the political season, that the important work you say the
commission could do is going to get caught up in partisanship?
After Clinton brought up the issue, Wallace claimed "we asked" and
shot back "Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, Sir?"
------------------------------------------
"I've reminded the prime minister - the American people, Mr. Prime
Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the
United States and America would have a close relationship."
-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
Fox is trying to divert attention away from Bush's failures in Iraq and
on the war on
terror by trying to shift some of the blame to Clinton so the
republicans won't look
so bad in the November election.
That is what this is all about, anyone who suggest otherwise is a fool.
Really? Who forced the impeached former President to make an ***** out of
himself on Fox?
.
|
|
|
| User: "FDR" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 07:33:20 PM |
|
|
"IranianSwine" <Imam@filth.ru> wrote in message
news:j8YRg.328$UJ2.54@fed1read07...
stonej wrote:
goddamnedliarb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They
Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how
many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, "Why did you
fire ***** Clarke?" By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most
concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking
office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff
and removed him from the Principals meeting.
Since 2001, Wallace has interview the top national security officials
from the Bush administration - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley - 42
times. According to a Lexis-Nexis database search, he never asked any
of them why Clarke was demoted.
The one time he brought up Clarke's name with a Bush administration
official - during a March 28, 2004 interview with Rumsfeld - he
repeatedly attempted to smear Clarke as political motivated and
untrustworthy. Some excerpts:
WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure
out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said
and of apparent contradictions in his story - is he telling the
truth, or is he pushing an agenda.
WALLACE: Let's switch, if we can, to a different aspect of this.
There is a move now by congressional Republican leaders to declassify
Clarke's testimony before one of their panels in 2002 to see whether
or not it contradicts what he is telling the commission and what he
writes in his book now. As I understand it, the Pentagon has to approve
any such declassification. Do you think it's a good idea?
WALLACE: Do you worry at all that, whether it's the debate over *****
Clarke's credibility, his charges, whether it's the fact that
we're in the political season, that the important work you say the
commission could do is going to get caught up in partisanship?
After Clinton brought up the issue, Wallace claimed "we asked" and
shot back "Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, Sir?"
------------------------------------------
"I've reminded the prime minister - the American people, Mr. Prime
Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the
United States and America would have a close relationship."
-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
Fox is trying to divert attention away from Bush's failures in Iraq and
on the war on
terror by trying to shift some of the blame to Clinton so the
republicans won't look
so bad in the November election.
That is what this is all about, anyone who suggest otherwise is a fool.
Really? Who forced the impeached former President to make an ***** out of
himself on Fox?
As opposed to Bush who makes an ***** out of himself everyday?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
27 Sep 2006 08:46:17 AM |
|
|
Who forced George W. Bush to dodge the draft, obtain a rich boy's
national guard alternative (from which he went awol) during the VIETNAM
WAR ERA when thousands gave their lives for their nation--then the
sissy ninny draft dodger proceeds to attack some of our most highly
decorated military veterans upon whom the United StateS has betowed its
highest honor. . . That is, untill the sissy ninny draft dodger decided
to challenge their honors publically. RIDICULOUS!
Imeach the twit--illegal torture, illegal wiretapping, lies, lies,
lies! ENOUGH!!!
If the Bush administation can create this BIZARRO WORLD, then Clinton
certainly has the right to confront a slanted Fox News idiot.
J
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 01:48:46 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They
Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how
many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, "Why did you
fire ***** Clarke?" By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most
concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking
office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff
and removed him from the Principals meeting.
Since 2001, Wallace has interview the top national security officials
from the Bush administration - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley - 42
times. According to a Lexis-Nexis database search, he never asked any
of them why Clarke was demoted.
The one time he brought up Clarke's name with a Bush administration
official - during a March 28, 2004 interview with Rumsfeld - he
repeatedly attempted to smear Clarke as political motivated and
untrustworthy. Some excerpts:
WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure
out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said
and of apparent contradictions in his story - is he telling the
truth, or is he pushing an agenda.
WALLACE: Let's switch, if we can, to a different aspect of this.
There is a move now by congressional Republican leaders to declassify
Clarke's testimony before one of their panels in 2002 to see whether
or not it contradicts what he is telling the commission and what he
writes in his book now. As I understand it, the Pentagon has to approve
any such declassification. Do you think it's a good idea?
WALLACE: Do you worry at all that, whether it's the debate over *****
Clarke's credibility, his charges, whether it's the fact that
we're in the political season, that the important work you say the
commission could do is going to get caught up in partisanship?
After Clinton brought up the issue, Wallace claimed "we asked" and
shot back "Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, Sir?"
------------------------------------------
"I've reminded the prime minister - the American people, Mr. Prime
Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the
United States and America would have a close relationship."
-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
This is why Billy boy wanted on. Trying to drum up support for that
fat thunderthighed ugly ***** wife of his Hitlary!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/743aibjn.asp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 12:04:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They
Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how
many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, "Why did you
fire ***** Clarke?" By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most
concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking
office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff
and removed him from the Principals meeting.
And increased his budget by five times, as Clarke actually admitted in
audiotapes. But don't let reality get in the way of your *****, idiot.
Since 2001, Wallace has interview the top national security officials
from the Bush administration - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley - 42
times. According to a Lexis-Nexis database search, he never asked any
of them why Clarke was demoted.
The one time he brought up Clarke's name with a Bush administration
official - during a March 28, 2004 interview with Rumsfeld - he
repeatedly attempted to smear Clarke as political motivated and
untrustworthy. Some excerpts:
WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure
out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said
and of apparent contradictions in his story - is he telling the
truth, or is he pushing an agenda.
WALLACE: Let's switch, if we can, to a different aspect of this.
There is a move now by congressional Republican leaders to declassify
Clarke's testimony before one of their panels in 2002 to see whether
or not it contradicts what he is telling the commission and what he
writes in his book now. As I understand it, the Pentagon has to approve
any such declassification. Do you think it's a good idea?
WALLACE: Do you worry at all that, whether it's the debate over *****
Clarke's credibility, his charges, whether it's the fact that
we're in the political season, that the important work you say the
commission could do is going to get caught up in partisanship?
After Clinton brought up the issue, Wallace claimed "we asked" and
shot back "Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, Sir?"
------------------------------------------
"I've reminded the prime minister - the American people, Mr. Prime
Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the
United States and America would have a close relationship."
-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "FDR" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 12:08:37 PM |
|
|
<omarenoryt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159203865.488372.131200@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
goddamnedliarbush@yahoo.com wrote:
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They
Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how
many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, "Why did you
fire ***** Clarke?" By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most
concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking
office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff
and removed him from the Principals meeting.
And increased his budget by five times, as Clarke actually admitted in
audiotapes. But don't let reality get in the way of your *****, idiot.
Yeah, the reality of no WMD and a gian failure in Iraq.
Since 2001, Wallace has interview the top national security officials
from the Bush administration - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley - 42
times. According to a Lexis-Nexis database search, he never asked any
of them why Clarke was demoted.
The one time he brought up Clarke's name with a Bush administration
official - during a March 28, 2004 interview with Rumsfeld - he
repeatedly attempted to smear Clarke as political motivated and
untrustworthy. Some excerpts:
WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure
out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said
and of apparent contradictions in his story - is he telling the
truth, or is he pushing an agenda.
WALLACE: Let's switch, if we can, to a different aspect of this.
There is a move now by congressional Republican leaders to declassify
Clarke's testimony before one of their panels in 2002 to see whether
or not it contradicts what he is telling the commission and what he
writes in his book now. As I understand it, the Pentagon has to approve
any such declassification. Do you think it's a good idea?
WALLACE: Do you worry at all that, whether it's the debate over *****
Clarke's credibility, his charges, whether it's the fact that
we're in the political season, that the important work you say the
commission could do is going to get caught up in partisanship?
After Clinton brought up the issue, Wallace claimed "we asked" and
shot back "Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, Sir?"
------------------------------------------
"I've reminded the prime minister - the American people, Mr. Prime
Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the
United States and America would have a close relationship."
-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
26 Sep 2006 06:26:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
And increased his budget by five times, as Clarke
actually admitted in audiotapes.
AFTER 9/11.
Sure, AFTER the 9/11 attacks took place the GOP
changed it's tune. But before 9/11 the Bush
administration ATTACKED Bill Clinton for being "focused"
on Bin Laden. Before 9/11 the Bush administration said
it was a "Mistake" to be focused on Bin Laden.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 11:29:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked
Chris Wallace how many times Wallace asked a
Bush administration official, "Why did you fire *****
Clarke?"
Huh? Clinton wasn't that lame. He asked Wallace if
he ever asked Bush about going after Bin Laden.
As Clinton pointed out, Bush had 8 months to go after
Bin Laden before 9/11, and never even bothered to try.
Wallace, nothing more than a mouthpiece for the GOP,
lied and claim that he did ask Whitehouse officials.
To be fair to Wallace though, it was a bit of a set up.
Clinton knew who he was dealing with, and had to be
well prepared for Faux "news" *****, while Wallace
is a partisan chump who only got his job because they
were hoping people would confuse him with his dad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FDR" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 11:42:14 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159201762.953958.215480@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
goddamnedliarb...@yahoo.com wrote:
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked
Chris Wallace how many times Wallace asked a
Bush administration official, "Why did you fire *****
Clarke?"
Huh? Clinton wasn't that lame. He asked Wallace if
he ever asked Bush about going after Bin Laden.
As Clinton pointed out, Bush had 8 months to go after
Bin Laden before 9/11, and never even bothered to try.
More precisely, Bush didn't even mention Al Queda, Bin Laden, Iraq or
Hussein in the prior 8 months before 9/11. That's how little importance he
placed in it.
Wallace, nothing more than a mouthpiece for the GOP,
lied and claim that he did ask Whitehouse officials.
To be fair to Wallace though, it was a bit of a set up.
Clinton knew who he was dealing with, and had to be
well prepared for Faux "news" *****, while Wallace
is a partisan chump who only got his job because they
were hoping people would confuse him with his dad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
25 Sep 2006 12:51:08 PM |
|
|
FDR wrote:
More precisely, Bush didn't even mention Al Queda,
Bin Laden, Iraq or Hussein in the prior 8 months
before 9/11. That's how little importance he placed
in it.
The Bush administration mentioned Bin Laden by name,
back in April of 2001:
| A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
| government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
| on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
| of the elephant and not the whole beast."
| http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat :-" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
26 Sep 2006 07:10:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:42:14 GMT, "FDR"
<_removespamfilter_fdr@hotmail.com> puked:
As Clinton pointed out, Bush had 8 months to go after
Bin Laden before 9/11, and never even bothered to try.
More precisely, Bush didn't even mention Al Queda, Bin Laden, Iraq or
Hussein in the prior 8 months before 9/11. That's how little importance he
placed in it.
Wait! You mean Bush didn't plan on invading Iraq since the second he
was sworn in?!?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T_Hull" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
26 Sep 2006 07:50:47 AM |
|
|
In article <0i3gh25jnl3mt0cqqqb1rep6doba1clggp@4ax.com>,
"lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:42:14 GMT, "FDR"
<_removespamfilter_fdr@hotmail.com> puked:
As Clinton pointed out, Bush had 8 months to go after
Bin Laden before 9/11, and never even bothered to try.
More precisely, Bush didn't even mention Al Queda, Bin Laden, Iraq or
Hussein in the prior 8 months before 9/11. That's how little importance he
placed in it.
Wait! You mean Bush didn't plan on invading Iraq since the second he
was sworn in?!?
Of course he was, he was just waiting for an excuse.
--
Greed and murder is forgiven, when in the name of god...
.
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat :-" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
27 Sep 2006 06:53:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:50:47 GMT, T_Hull <XXXthull1@columbus.rr.com>
puked:
In article <0i3gh25jnl3mt0cqqqb1rep6doba1clggp@4ax.com>,
"lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:42:14 GMT, "FDR"
<_removespamfilter_fdr@hotmail.com> puked:
As Clinton pointed out, Bush had 8 months to go after
Bin Laden before 9/11, and never even bothered to try.
More precisely, Bush didn't even mention Al Queda, Bin Laden, Iraq or
Hussein in the prior 8 months before 9/11. That's how little importance he
placed in it.
Wait! You mean Bush didn't plan on invading Iraq since the second he
was sworn in?!?
Of course he was, he was just waiting for an excuse.
By that logic, you would have to admit the possibility that he was
planning on attacking Al Qaeda and bin Laden as well, but just keeping
it quiet, no?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stick Waver" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year oldblowjob? |
26 Sep 2006 08:29:46 AM |
|
|
T_Hull wrote:
In article <0i3gh25jnl3mt0cqqqb1rep6doba1clggp@4ax.com>,
"lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:42:14 GMT, "FDR"
<_removespamfilter_fdr@hotmail.com> puked:
As Clinton pointed out, Bush had 8 months to go after
Bin Laden before 9/11, and never even bothered to try.
More precisely, Bush didn't even mention Al Queda, Bin Laden, Iraq or
Hussein in the prior 8 months before 9/11. That's how little importance he
placed in it.
Wait! You mean Bush didn't plan on invading Iraq since the second he
was sworn in?!?
Of course he was, he was just waiting for an excuse.
And he was right:
Silly schoolies show sympathy (for the devil)
By Hadi Kazwini
[Hadi Kazwini, an Australian-Iraqi engineer and writer in Sydney, came
to Australia as a refugee in 1997]
March 07, 2003
WHEN my 14-year-old daughter told me she was not going to demonstrate
against the war with the other students at her school, I asked her
why. Not
because I was surprised, but I was interested to hear what reasons she
would
give.
She promptly replied: "It's going to benefit Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi
students or children. I also asked my friends not to go either."
On Wednesday night, as she watched the TV news, my daughter asked me: "Why
is everybody suddenly remembering the Iraqi people? Where have they
been all
these years?"
What concerns the anti-war activists of the moment is completely
irrelevant
to the real concerns of the people inside Iraq.
War is not the frightening prospect that the Iraqis wish to avert. For
them,
the heartbreaking question is whether the Iraqi dictator will be able to
stay in power so he can continue to commit atrocious crimes against the
people.
It seems to Iraqis that they have been betrayed by Western activists,
whose
one-eyed theme is unconditional opposition to war - without any
acknowledgement of the suffering of the Iraqi people under the cruelest
dictatorship in modern history.
As the Nobel peace prize winner Jose Ramos Horta, foreign minister of East
Timor, recently asked: "Why in all of these demonstrations did I not
see one
single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights
abuses
in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis?"
Most Iraqis are asking the same question now.
Even if the anti-war activists have good intentions, the effect of their
demonstrations has caused a lot of anger within Iraqi society, which has
been waiting desperately for an opportunity to be liberated from its
ongoing
nightmare.
I deplore violence and war and believe that any war will bring numerous
casualties and much destruction. But Iraq has been in a state of war
since 1980. Hussein's regime dragged our
people into two bloody and stupid wars. One million were killed and half a
million left disabled.
The regime used chemical weapons against the civilians of Iraqi Kurdistan,
killing as many as 3500 people - most of them children, women and the
elderly unable to flee the town of Halabja. The regime waged war
against the
Kurds and destroyed more than 5000 villages; 150,000 innocent people were
massacred.
The regime brutally silenced those who rebelled in March 1991; in the
south,
180,000 innocent people were killed. The regime destroyed the ancient
Southern Marshes - the biblical Garden of Eden - and caused an
environmental
catastrophe.
Four and a half million Iraqis have left their country in the past 12
years;
perhaps 18 per cent of the population. Most are intellectuals and
professionals. It is the first migration in Iraqi history.
People in the West have no idea of what it is like to live under such a
brutal totalitarian regime.
Foreign journalists are not able to reflect the everyday suffering and
agony
of the people. The Iraqis do not usually share this with foreigners out of
fear of the regime. Its spies are everywhere, even within the family.
Schoolchildren are asked whether their parents are loyal to Hussein.
Those who report people speaking against the regime are paid generously.
Five different police agencies make the life of the Iraqis worse than
hell.
People are in a state of fear which is beyond imagination.
A couple of days ago I talked to friends of mine who had just managed to
leave Iraq for Jordan. They told me that most Iraqis believe the anti-war
demonstrations in the West are propaganda exercises secretly organised and
financed by agents and supporters of the Iraqi regime.
Meanwhile, the anti-war activists in the West continue to talk about
morality.
Iraqis are not only suffering from the embargo or lack of food and
medicine.
This is just a stage curtain; behind is a scene that is far more
complicated
and far more tragic.
Iraqis are suffering from fear, lack of freedom, lack of a decent
life, lack
of free speech - even lack of knowledge of what they are missing.
Their children are suffering from the lack of dreams, the lack of
innocence.
The people of the Iraqi nation are utterly desperate. It is their fate,
destiny and future that are at stake now.
Just look at us: for the first time in history we are dispersed around the
globe.
Every one of us bears 6000 years of history on his shoulders. We are the
descendants of the Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians.
Our ancestors built the first city and created the first writing
system. We
are the Mesopotamians knocking on embassy doors for shelter, for
visas, yet
few open up for us. We have suffered the bitter loss of thousands of our
people - drowned, driven mad, shot down - as they tried to find their way
into exile and survival.
The world has been so cruel and ignorant, so stupid and blind. Will the US
and the countries of the "willing" strike and suck our blood for
decades to
come as the price for liberating the Iraqi people? Well, there is nothing
for free, is there? Do you think we have any other choice?
Hadi Kazwini, an Australian-Iraqi engineer and writer in Sydney, came to
Australia as a refugee in 1997.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
26 Sep 2006 08:42:57 AM |
|
|
When it was convenient, musicians like Bruce Springsteen and Sting
came out against Human Rights abuses.... now that it is the thing to
bash the Bush administration, they seem to forget all they championed
back then. I guess the Iraqi people aren't covered under Human Rights
Now !
Stick Waver wrote:
T_Hull wrote:
In article <0i3gh25jnl3mt0cqqqb1rep6doba1clggp@4ax.com>,
"lab~rat >:-)" <chase@cheeze.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:42:14 GMT, "FDR"
<_removespamfilter_fdr@hotmail.com> puked:
As Clinton pointed out, Bush had 8 months to go after
Bin Laden before 9/11, and never even bothered to try.
More precisely, Bush didn't even mention Al Queda, Bin Laden, Iraq or
Hussein in the prior 8 months before 9/11. That's how little importance he
placed in it.
Wait! You mean Bush didn't plan on invading Iraq since the second he
was sworn in?!?
Of course he was, he was just waiting for an excuse.
And he was right:
Silly schoolies show sympathy (for the devil)
By Hadi Kazwini
[Hadi Kazwini, an Australian-Iraqi engineer and writer in Sydney, came
to Australia as a refugee in 1997]
March 07, 2003
WHEN my 14-year-old daughter told me she was not going to demonstrate
against the war with the other students at her school, I asked her
why. Not
because I was surprised, but I was interested to hear what reasons she
would
give.
She promptly replied: "It's going to benefit Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi
students or children. I also asked my friends not to go either."
On Wednesday night, as she watched the TV news, my daughter asked me: "Why
is everybody suddenly remembering the Iraqi people? Where have they
been all
these years?"
What concerns the anti-war activists of the moment is completely
irrelevant
to the real concerns of the people inside Iraq.
War is not the frightening prospect that the Iraqis wish to avert. For
them,
the heartbreaking question is whether the Iraqi dictator will be able to
stay in power so he can continue to commit atrocious crimes against the
people.
It seems to Iraqis that they have been betrayed by Western activists,
whose
one-eyed theme is unconditional opposition to war - without any
acknowledgement of the suffering of the Iraqi people under the cruelest
dictatorship in modern history.
As the Nobel peace prize winner Jose Ramos Horta, foreign minister of East
Timor, recently asked: "Why in all of these demonstrations did I not
see one
single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights
abuses
in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis?"
Most Iraqis are asking the same question now.
Even if the anti-war activists have good intentions, the effect of their
demonstrations has caused a lot of anger within Iraqi society, which has
been waiting desperately for an opportunity to be liberated from its
ongoing
nightmare.
I deplore violence and war and believe that any war will bring numerous
casualties and much destruction. But Iraq has been in a state of war
since 1980. Hussein's regime dragged our
people into two bloody and stupid wars. One million were killed and half a
million left disabled.
The regime used chemical weapons against the civilians of Iraqi Kurdistan,
killing as many as 3500 people - most of them children, women and the
elderly unable to flee the town of Halabja. The regime waged war
against the
Kurds and destroyed more than 5000 villages; 150,000 innocent people were
massacred.
The regime brutally silenced those who rebelled in March 1991; in the
south,
180,000 innocent people were killed. The regime destroyed the ancient
Southern Marshes - the biblical Garden of Eden - and caused an
environmental
catastrophe.
Four and a half million Iraqis have left their country in the past 12
years;
perhaps 18 per cent of the population. Most are intellectuals and
professionals. It is the first migration in Iraqi history.
People in the West have no idea of what it is like to live under such a
brutal totalitarian regime.
Foreign journalists are not able to reflect the everyday suffering and
agony
of the people. The Iraqis do not usually share this with foreigners out of
fear of the regime. Its spies are everywhere, even within the family.
Schoolchildren are asked whether their parents are loyal to Hussein.
Those who report people speaking against the regime are paid generously.
Five different police agencies make the life of the Iraqis worse than
hell.
People are in a state of fear which is beyond imagination.
A couple of days ago I talked to friends of mine who had just managed to
leave Iraq for Jordan. They told me that most Iraqis believe the anti-war
demonstrations in the West are propaganda exercises secretly organised and
financed by agents and supporters of the Iraqi regime.
Meanwhile, the anti-war activists in the West continue to talk about
morality.
Iraqis are not only suffering from the embargo or lack of food and
medicine.
This is just a stage curtain; behind is a scene that is far more
complicated
and far more tragic.
Iraqis are suffering from fear, lack of freedom, lack of a decent
life, lack
of free speech - even lack of knowledge of what they are missing.
Their children are suffering from the lack of dreams, the lack of
innocence.
The people of the Iraqi nation are utterly desperate. It is their fate,
destiny and future that are at stake now.
Just look at us: for the first time in history we are dispersed around the
globe.
Every one of us bears 6000 years of history on his shoulders. We are the
descendants of the Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians.
Our ancestors built the first city and created the first writing
system. We
are the Mesopotamians knocking on embassy doors for shelter, for
visas, yet
few open up for us. We have suffered the bitter loss of thousands of our
people - drowned, driven mad, shot down - as they tried to find their way
into exile and survival.
The world has been so cruel and ignorant, so stupid and blind. Will the US
and the countries of the "willing" strike and suck our blood for
decades to
come as the price for liberating the Iraqi people? Well, there is nothing
for free, is there? Do you think we have any other choice?
Hadi Kazwini, an Australian-Iraqi engineer and writer in Sydney, came to
Australia as a refugee in 1997.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Faux News neocon network so hung up on a 12 year old *****? |
26 Sep 2006 09:13:08 AM |
|
|
wrote:
When it was convenient, musicians like Bruce Springsteen and Sting
came out against Human Rights abuses....
That was a tour they did to mark the anniversary of the UDHR.
That's like saying we celebrated the bicentennial back when it was
convenient and we can't be bothered to do so today.
THINK, dude. Don't be a moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
