Richard Clarke Buys A Waffle Hut
By Ron Marr (03/31/04)
I'm not surprised that Richard Clarke, the former cyberterrorism official under President Bush (and a counter terrorism official under Bill Clinton) chose this particular time to smear his most recent employer. After all, such is the sleazy way of the liberal. Clarke is peddling a book, He is best friends with John Kerry's closest advisor. I'm not surprised that Clarke leveled his charges and released his book while the 9/11 Commission was meeting. It's publicity of national magnitude, and a sure trip to the bestseller list.
Neither am I surprised that 60 Minutes gave Clarke a full hour to state his case. If you didn't know it, CBS (which airs 60 Minutes) is owned by Viacom. That company also owns Simon and Schuster, who published Clarke's book. Just an oversight? An innocent mistake which 60 Minutes forgot to reveal to the viewing public?
Perhaps. Then again, 60 Minutes provided the same free soapbox to former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill when he published his book critical of George W. Again, Viacom owned the publishing house. I don't know how much money O'Neill received for his tome, but it has been reported that Clarke's take will be in the millions.
No...I'm not surprised at all. Clarke and O'Neill are disgruntled employees toting a pack of lies. And, lying is what liberals do best. Their tactic is to say or do anything to further a personal agenda. Their word matters not a whit; for they have no honor, ethics or values. To a liberal, people are pawns. As we've seen time and again, once in power liberals treat the average citizen like a medieval serf.
The only dream of the liberal is to cheat their way into power, and then abuse it for their own personal aggrandizement. To them, the end ALWAYS justifies the means. They rationalize this strategy by saying that we, the common people, were told lies "for our own good."
Luckily, John Kerry is a horrible liar bereft of charisma. He is no Bill Clinton; I've seen rabid possums more charming than Kerry. The man makes outrageous claims to the crowds, appearing nauseated and frightened at the thought of brushing against the untouchables whose votes he seeks to purloin. When his opposition counters Kerry fabrications with facts (such as revealing his voting record) he labels it a personal attack and changes the subject.
Kerry's usual tactic is to segue into some sort of emotional plea that will distract the stupid among us, inevitably following up with a diatribe involving his three purple hearts and silver star. I don't think he can get away with that for long. It sure as hell won't play in a debate.
So, again, I'm not surprised that Richard Clarke and John Kerry appear to share the same bed? We all know how Kerry has waffled on nearly every major issue of the day, such as his votes both FOR and AGAINST our invasion of Iraq. The man casts his ballot dependent upon how the wind blows...and the only land which he truly loves is that which lies beneath the mansions owned by his wife (which total $33 million in value). The only jobs he wishes to create are minimum wage positions for those who would wash his cars, mow his lawns, fetch his slippers and serve him his morning caviar and champagne.
Clarke waffles just as bad. The man now claims that terrorism was "unimportant" to George Bush, neglecting to elaborate that our current Commander in Chief was in office only 230 days before the attacks came. In contrast, Clarke speaks highly of his former boss, Bill Clinton. He implies Clinton labeled terrorism a high priority...neglecting again to point out that the Arkie shyster had a full eight years to take substantive steps, and did nothing but lob a couple of cruise missiles at an Aspirin factory. He neglects to inform that Bush inherited a military and intelligence service that had been maligned and gutted by Clinton.
Clarke's own words, in the wake of 9/11, praised George Bush. He spoke of how the President was doing all that could be done, focusing his energies and taking the right steps. Now, he says he only made those statements because he was "told" to make them. Gee, what a defense. Are we really to believe that any man with such a lack of spine would fail to ask "how high" when told to jump? If Clarke lied (as he claims) during his years with Bush, why should we doubt that he is not doing the same thing at the behest of his friend John Kerry?
Clarke swears that these days he has no incentive to lie, though judging by the details of his book deal I can think of at least a million reasons. He claims his latest "truth" arises out of love of country.
More likely, it is love of a standing invitation to swig mint julips at one of the country estates of John Kerry Heinz.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ron Marr
