Reply #13: My response(my snippiness is directed at this guy not you! :) ) [View All]

here are two sides to every story ... Yes I saw it and let's just say this guy is trying to sell his new book, and also jockey for a spot in the possible Kerry administration.

So? How does this invalidate the charges? BTW, Clarke is on record refusing a position on a possible Kerry admin. He is also a registered Republican who was first appointed by Reagan.


Clarke used to run his mouth about the Clinton administration and how he could never get them to commit to taking any action, actions that he deemed necessary at the time (vs al Qaeda).

Again, So? This shows his objective was al Qaeda NOT paritisan politics. We heard many WH officials blame Clinton's inactions in a similar manner today. Are they to be dismissed too?


I could go on and cite examples but guys like that are not worth my time. Clarke's clearly bitter that he didn't get a job offer in the office of homeland security. His story has changed over the past few years, making his credibility a big ZERO.

It is easy to engage in ad hominem attacks than reasoned debate. So far I haven't seen you offer any facts to bolster your position.


At the end of the day, Clarke was in charge of counter-terrorism for many years. If he wants to start pointing fingers at people, he doesn't have far to look. And all that carp about Bush being blood thirsty for Iraq is nuts.

There are independent accounts which verify Clarke's claim. Paul O'Neill comes to mind. Oh wait, he too is a hack. How about Karen K. (can't remember her last name) and her expose on the OSP? Oh, right, I guess what we have here is a far left conspiracy to discredit the president.


What would be in it for him to risk American lives unless it was necessary. I am tired of people challenging the president's motives. Maybe he doesn't make all the best decisions in hindsite but I believe his motives are genuine.

I am happy you have a faith based belief in Bush. I however, don't, and would like to see the substance of Clarke's accusations addressed.


Hmmm ... her facial expression you say? Your contention is based on her facial expression. Interesting.

You offer nothing more substantial than your unsupported belief that Bush's motives are "genuine". How can you know this? At least Clarke has had one on one conversations with these people, you haven't.



"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."


Lieberman wasn't inside the WH during this time, how could he possibly know? Others were inside the White House and Pentagon tell very similar stories to Clarke.



Even better ... the plot thickens with this Clarke character ... what I don't understand is how anyone is so ready to believe someone like this?

Clarke is going to testify under oath on Wednesday. So if he is lying, it will be quite easy to charge him with perjury.

Interestingly enough Condi Rice refuses to do the same. Nor will Bush or Cheney. Why?

Perhaps they learned from Clinton, you aren't accountable unless you lie under oath.



NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

How does this reflect on Clarke? All it shows is how incestuous the media is?

You haven't debated one fact, just tossed around personal character attacks.

/rant

Feel free to use any of this if you wish. LOL!