Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (459793)	9/16/2003 3:46:44 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Let's examine what was said. If you read version three carefully, you will see that Clark has now exonerated the White House of his most serious accusation. Much as he wants to put a sinister spin on the matter, all Clark is saying is that the White House was more sensitive to the Iraqi threat after 9/11. Wrong. If you read the first discussion, you'll see that Clark never said that the White House called him. And, if you read George Will's version of the conversation, you'll see that he switched the order of sentences to make it SEEM as if Clark was saying the White House called him. Another neocon theory debunked. That leaves the question of the call. It's true that journalists protect sources all the time. But there are also times when a source deserves to be burned, and this is one of them. We're not talking about a normal journalist-source relationship here. We're talking about someone who urged the former supreme allied commander of NATO to go on national TV on 9/11 and assert a provocative untruth. What conceivable reason can Clark have for protecting this joker? This is not someone he called for information. This is someone who called him--who wanted to use Clark--to plant a phony story. And why is this grossly irresponsible "fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank" privy to "inside intelligence information"? You would think Clark has a positive duty to expose the man. But that assumes he exists. So, this is the substance of the charge against Clark - that he won't say who made the call? They make the point that all journalists protect their sources, then claim that it doesn't apply to Clark. Jeez. Typical neocon bs. Rules don't apply to them, like when Cheney won't obey a court order to reveal what his Energy Task Force did and how they spent their money. Typical. You can do better than that, can't you?