Liberal media and Clarke
Much of the liberal media is deeply invested in clarkes wild tales about the pre 9-11 "war" on terror. They so want Bush to lose that they will believe anything they think may produce that result. Even Howard Kurtz, the media critic ofthe Washington Post seemed upset with Fox News for letting the truth about Clarke slip out. They along with Senator Kerrey act as if it is unfair to confront the man who has made outrageous allegations against the President with his prior inconsistant statements. Are they not interested in the whole truth?
There is nothing remotely unethical about the White House agreeing to release the reporters from any confidentiality agreements. Clarke himself says he was acting at the request of the President in giving the back grounder. The real question is why the other five journalist, who were all told about the release from the confideniality agreement at the same time were not as interested in getting the truth out as Jim Angle of Fox News. As Jack Nicholoson said in "A Few Good Men" maybe they can't handle the truth.
But their coverup for Clarke is not working. Fox has a wide audience, and to compete CNN also published some of the inconsistancies. Blogs and other publications have also jumped on the inconsistancies. Many are linked below. Clarke appears so intent on smearing the President and Condi Rice that he gave testimony that was inconsistant with his own book. He is strting to act like a real skunk trying to throw stink at anyone who disputes his changing versions of events.
Much of the liberal media is deeply invested in clarkes wild tales about the pre 9-11 "war" on terror. They so want Bush to lose that they will believe anything they think may produce that result. Even Howard Kurtz, the media critic ofthe Washington Post seemed upset with Fox News for letting the truth about Clarke slip out. They along with Senator Kerrey act as if it is unfair to confront the man who has made outrageous allegations against the President with his prior inconsistant statements. Are they not interested in the whole truth?
There is nothing remotely unethical about the White House agreeing to release the reporters from any confidentiality agreements. Clarke himself says he was acting at the request of the President in giving the back grounder. The real question is why the other five journalist, who were all told about the release from the confideniality agreement at the same time were not as interested in getting the truth out as Jim Angle of Fox News. As Jack Nicholoson said in "A Few Good Men" maybe they can't handle the truth.
But their coverup for Clarke is not working. Fox has a wide audience, and to compete CNN also published some of the inconsistancies. Blogs and other publications have also jumped on the inconsistancies. Many are linked below. Clarke appears so intent on smearing the President and Condi Rice that he gave testimony that was inconsistant with his own book. He is strting to act like a real skunk trying to throw stink at anyone who disputes his changing versions of events.
Comments
Post a Comment