No announcement yet.

Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

    Interesting fact: combining his recent 60 minutes interview and yesterday's Meet The Press interview, Mr. Clarke has managed to be on national television for almost an hour without a reporter asking a single question about his experience in the Clinton administration.


    |S&P| leejo


    Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp
    March 29th, 2004

    Democrats, it would seem, have developed a sudden new sense of protectiveness for those who tell tales out of school. Anyone who remembers the name Linda Tripp cannot help but be amused at the Democrats rushing forward to decry the “trashing” of Richard Clarke. Where were these same Democrats when Linda Tripp was vilified on a daily basis?

    It is worth taking a few moments to consider the two cases in a comparative light.

    Alleged Offense

    Clarke broke with over two hundred years of tradition, and revealed the national security deliberations of professional non-political career civil service advisers to the President and his chief aides. In doing so, he ensured that future Presidents will never be able to rely on their staff to respect the confidentiality previous Presidents of both parties have enjoyed. Certain views or potential courses of action may unexpressed, as a result of the threat of future publicity from a tell-tale aide. Clarke also reportedly contradicted previous (so far secret) testimony and background briefings he previously provided. Claims in his book have also been found to be at variance with the facts.

    Tripp was asked by Monica Lewinsky to perjure herself, so as to protect their former boss, Bill Clinton, from the discovery of his sexual dalliance with a young woman entrusted to his care as an intern. To avoid being set up as a fall-guy, Tripp prudently tape recorded telephone calls from Lewinsky, who had attempted to suborn perjury. She thus “betrayed” the “friendship” of someone who wanted her to commit a felony to benefit the “friend.”

    Nature of Criticism

    Clarke’s writings and testimony before the 9/11 Commission have been subjected to comparison with his previous writings and testimony, some of which have been, or have been proposed to be, newly declassified or released. Clarke’s motivation in writing his book has been questioned, in that his publisher has launched one of the most successful and highly-coordinated publicity campaigns in publishing history, encompassing moving the timing of publication to match his 9/11 Commission testimony, and tying-in sister company CBS’s premier showcase venue, Sixty Minutes. Clarke stands to earn a million dollars or more. He has, in response, promised to donate an unspecified “portion” of his earnings to the families of 9/11 victims and military survivors of the Afghan campaign. The most partisan critics of Clarke have gone so far as to call him a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal.

    Linda Tripp was also called a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. Her tape recordings spoke for themselves, and were uncontradicted. Tripp was accused of wanting to profit from a book, allegedly being “in it for the money,” although no book was ever proposed, written, or published. Additionally, Tripp’s morality, weight, and personal appearance were savagely ridiculed. John Goodman, a portly male actor, donned a dress and mocked her appearance and her very femininity on Saturday Night Live, on a regular basis.


    Clarke has dominated the past week’s news, and his charges have been respectfully reported by nearly all of the major media. Only some of the media have subjected his charges to comparison with his earlier testimony and backgrounder views. There have been no reports of Clarke’s pension or retirement benefits being challenged. The size of Clarke’s advance from his publisher and his potential profits from his book have only today been revealed in a leak to Drudge. Clarke’s close connection to John Kerry’s foreign policy advisor (the two men jointly teach a course at Harvard’s Kennedy School) has been barely noted, and is not the subject of daily commentary in most of the press.

    No ridicule of Clarke’s appearance, weight, or masculinity has so far come to our attention. If Saturday Night Live has plans to hire Roseanne Barr or some other fat comedienne to mock Clarke’s weight, appearance, and masculinity, no publicity has yet been generated for the comedic festivities.

    Linda Tripp was fired from her job with the federal government. Later, following litigation, a large settlement was paid to her, acknowledging that her firing had been improper. Unable to move about in public without cruel taunting, she subjected herself to a weight loss regimen and plastic surgery, to drastically change her appearance. The costs of this were reportedly borne by sympathizers, probably motivated by their animus toward Bill Clinton. Linda Tripp subsequently developed, and then recovered from, cancer.

    Presidential aide James Carville added to his fame and reputation by relentlessly demonizing Linda Tripp. So far, no Republican equivalent of James Carville attack-dog tactics has appeared.

    For some small things, we can be grateful.

  • #2
    Re: Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

    So of all the things that he has brought to light regarding the war on terrorism, this is what you comment on?

    The timing of his book publication was out of his hands. (book was submitted to the WH to be reviewed back in december)

    All this does is try to shine the light in another direction. If you try to compare these two, how about include the seriousness of he charges in comparison?

    And the guy has said he will not take any position with either campaign winner. And mr. perl had similar "insider stories to tell"

    Unable to move about in public without cruel taunting, she subjected herself to a weight loss regimen and plastic surgery, to drastically change her appearance
    waaahh... cry me a freakin river. We have folks in office that possibly fuqed up REAL BAD, and this is what they are talkin about?
    Misdirection at it's finest.


    • #3
      Re: Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

      Well I disagree Frito.

      I have a problem with no-one in the press asking Clarke a single question about Clinton's policies or efforts while spending an hour on national television asking question after question about what Bush did or did not do.

      I have a problem with Clarke claming to be just another guy working for the white house with no political agenda while having such close ties to Kerry.

      For the record, I don't give a damn about Linda Tripp or her problems, but it is interesting that the same people who are crying "foul" on behalf of poor pitiful Mr. Clarke are the same ones who played smear the queer when Ms. Tripp was holding the ball.

      Furthermore, if you pay attention to Clarke's testimony and accept everything he says as true, it seems that his claims basically go along these lines:

      "I was doing my work, alone, with no support, and no-one would meet with me to discuss my proposal. I alone was ensuring that relevant agencies were notified, placed on high alert, etc."

      In other words, he was doing his job, he was letting his boss know about it, and the CEO didn't feel like he had to hold the guy's hand every day. But the job got done, according to Clarke. Incidentally, Bush WAS meeting with Tenet every day.


      • #4
        Re: Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

        Clarke is a joke that will fade away quickly. His credibility in Congress is now shot. What surprises me is that the liberal media outlets are even picking up on this fact.
        Become a supporting member!
        Buy a Tactical Duck!
        Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
        TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:


        • #5
          Re: Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

          He was just precious on Meet The Press yesterday holding up his little 2-sentence note from the pres like it was a golden turd or something.

          Seemed like a guy I'd want to fire at some point, too.


          • #6
            Re: Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

            You know why nobody asks him about the Clinton Administration's efforts? Because we already know. What we don't know is what Bush was doing because it is all still classified. As for the *perjury* implication you seem to be pushing, the chairman of the committee that he spoke to in Congress (the record of which is still classified and is compared testimony), said that the story was very much the same and anyone that says differently obvously wasn't there. This was on Good Morning America, Wednesday of last week. I mean really, is this all we have to discuss? Is anyone who questions the validity of the Bush campaign going to suffer public verbal abuse and discreditation because they tell a different story that of the Bush staff? As Frito said, this is simply a misdirection ploy. If you call your enemy a name on national television everyone focuses on the fact that you called them a name and not the actual issue what was presented. Hopefully you will realize that GWB can only call "Wolf!" so many times before people stop paying attention. Now back to regularly scheduled hatemongering, lies and deceit.
            Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - Douglas Adams


            • #7
              Re: Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

              I'm not pushing anything, just calling notice to the great interest 60 Minutes and Meet The Press have shown Mr. Clarke's work for the Bush administration and utter disregard for the 8 years' work he'd done up to that point.

              I'm also calling attention to the fact that the very people who are crying foul now had no problem letting Ms. Tripp dangle in the wind when their boy was feeling the heat.

              With regard to perjury, I have no idea.

              PS - Please stop accusing me of misdirection and misleading statements every time I put up a post that questions a claim a liberal has made while closing your posts with unsubstantiated claims of "hatemongering, lies, and deceit".

              Surely you see the irony in this?
              Last edited by leejo; 03-29-2004, 04:01 PM.


              • #8
                Re: Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

                LOL this is funny given the hub-bub about Condi Rice's testifying before the 9/11 commission:



                National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would be a breach of separation between congressional and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!


                On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee due to a directive by the National Security Council. Since Clarke was not a confirmed member of the White House staff, the directive was made that Clarke was not allowed to testify before Congress.

                Senator Bennett:

                "Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment. We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here.

                "Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

                "Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

                "He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule.

                "As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here.

                "He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.

                "So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing.

                "We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here, but that is what has taken place in the last 10 to 12 hours. "So with that word of explanation and, as I say, disappointment to many of you, I will now officially call the committee to order..."


                • #9
                  Re: Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp

                  Interesting article from Ann Coulter. I know, alot of you probably get dry heaves when you hear her name, but she is an interesting writer.

                  We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:


                  In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.
                  Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.


                  The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.
                  In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.
                  President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.
                  In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.
                  Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.
                  In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.
                  Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.
                  On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.
                  Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."
                  Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.


                  In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.
                  President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.
                  In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
                  In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.


                  In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.
                  Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
                  In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
                  Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
                  In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.
                  Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
                  In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.
                  Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
                  Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.
                  Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.
                  In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.
                  Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
                  In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.
                  On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.
                  Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.
                  On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.
                  Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.
                  On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.
                  Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."
                  The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.
                  In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
                  Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.


                  Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.
                  On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.
                  Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

                  What a surprise.
                  New to TG?




                  TeamSpeak 3 Server




                  Twitter Feed