9/11 Hearings
I have been following the 9/11 hearings on Fox, and it seems that there is a lot more to this investigation than I thought! Linda Vester and Greta Van Susteren both have a unique way of explaining this complicated web of "he said, she said" administration banter in a way that I am able to follow...which other networks have not been able to do, imho.
Anyone else following the hearings? So what do you think>? 🙁
Heavy topic for this forum... but since it is in here, I guess I have been following fairly closely... I think that it was definitely good for fox to release the transcript, and I also think the hearings are a good idea. I do, however, think that Clarke is taking advantage of the situation to sell a book... I don't know who to trust, but I do enjoy watching the coverage...
I don't know what people are talking about when they say they think Clarke is "taking advantage of the hearings for personal gain". I think he's a very trustworthy guy. He worked under the Clinton Administration and was quite good. And here he is apologizing for not doing everything in his power to stop the attacks, and everybody jumps on him. The "Liberal Media" makes me sick. Especially Time magazine's article about Condoleezza Rice and how the media is "attacking" her. Newsweek's article on the topic, however, I thought was quite good. I could go on and on about how much I hate the way both the government and the media is handling this, but it wouldn't be a pretty sight and I'd probably just end up getting people mad.
Just the fact that he is contradicting himself outright, in order to sell books. He is creating his own controversy, in order to sell books. I feel it is a good idea to have the hearings, but FNC presented a transcript of Clarke that completely invalidates everything he is currently claiming. Other networks are all hiding.
Originally posted by scott hiwersh
Just the fact that he is contradicting himself outright, in order to sell books. He is creating his own controversy, in order to sell books. I feel it is a good idea to have the hearings, but FNC presented a transcript of Clarke that completely invalidates everything he is currently claiming. Other networks are all hiding.
He's not contradicting himself. Most people who are privvy to his original testimony say there is no contradiction to speak of. It's just the republicans looking for a way out of this mess they've created.
I'll post some interesting things later.
corn
Originally posted by scott hiwersh
Just the fact that he is contradicting himself outright, in order to sell books. He is creating his own controversy, in order to sell books. I feel it is a good idea to have the hearings, but FNC presented a transcript of Clarke that completely invalidates everything he is currently claiming. Other networks are all hiding.
He's not "contradicting himself" to sell his book. I don't know where everybody gets that idea. Maybe from the "Liberal Media" that we don't have. He wasn't telling the truth when he was working for the Bush Administration for a simple reason: HE DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE HIS JOB. And who can blame him? It probably would've created a huge controversy, and with this whole Patriot Act thing, who knows, he might've even ended up in jail. That, and the fact that it's his source of income. And you know what? I support him, and I don't have his book.