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.
But his book and public testimony is at odds with remarks he made after
retiring, and according to at least one member of the 9/11 commission
with what he told them behind closed doors.
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?
Campaign contributions are a matter of public record and can be
verified. The only indication we have of who he voted for is his word,
given after people started questioning his motives.
Near as I can tell, Bush 41 hasn't run for office in the ten year period
I mentioned.
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? Clarke's not the first to say GW was lusting after
Saddam from day one of his administration. 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? Why did Condi Rice
change her mind about testifying in the last two days? Sounds like the Bush
team takes the Clarke threat seriously....
Dr. Rice apparently wants to dispute what Clarke said about her in his
public testimony.
Even Sec. Rumsfeld who normally seems to avoid direct political comment
mentioned Clarke said he looked detached in a meeting he (Rumsfeld)
wasn't at.
Clarke's statements don't need to be true to pose a threat. I'm sure if
he said something scurrilous about you, you'd want to correct the record
too.
In the long run, I think most people will discount Clarke's book and
testimony.