Michael Bryant wrote:
From: "Mark S. Holden"
As people find out more about Richard Clarke, and think about what he's
saying his credibility will go down.
I generally respect your contributions, Mark, but will opt to disagree with
you, this time.
There are numerous conflicts between what he's saying now, and what he said
in the past.
Yeah, I say nice things about my boss when the accreditors come around, too.
Doesn't mean I don't think he screws up big time and needs to consider
alternative options.
His close ties to Sen. Kerry's top national security advisor will become a
factor. While he says he voted Republican in 2000, all of his political
donations for the last ten years went to Democrats.
He contributed to Clinton, during that administration, and voted for Bush.
Sounds like your standard cover-all-bases bureaucrat. How come you don't
mention his contribution to GH Bush's campaign?
Most people will probably decide he's just trying to sell a book.
How many more former Bush administration bureaucrats are going to have to print
books saying the same thing?
The same thing? More lies and fabrications?
Clarke's not the first to say GW was lusting after
Saddam from day one of his administration.
So? Saddam was in violation of many things Fat Boy, suggest you go look em up!
How many more will it take before
Powell and Rice, the counter-attack dogs, stop trying to destroy the personal
credibility of anyone daring to make GW look less-than-pure?
Credibility? What credibility?
Why did Condi Rice
change her mind about testifying in the last two days? Sounds like the Bush
team takes the Clarke threat seriously....
Hardly! After a while though one has to put a stop to lies and fabrications.
You know all about lies and fabrications don't you Fat Boy?