"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "T. Early"
Links (polls), please.
I didn't save the link, but you should check out this morning's SF
Chronicle
for the connection between Clarke and Bush's polls dropping this
week.
Thanks for the response and the link below. Unfortunately it doesn't
support what you said: "Polls show Clarke's credibility in the eyes of
the general public is higher than Bush's." I actually googled this
before asking and, in addition to your reference in the SF paper, I
can find no polls on Clarke's credibility, none on Bush's credibility
post-Clarke (as a specific issue), and no polls -comparing- their
credibility. The fact that Bush's -overall- numbers may have dropped
slightly in the face of a nonstop onslaught from the "conservative"
(LOL) media (including the paid commercial on Viacom/Simon &
Schuster's"60 minutes"), has no bearing on the issue of the two men's
credibility versus one another or whether there are any polls on that
point as you said. Bottom line, your point is based on inference and
can't be substantiated.
For anyone who cares to bother to check (and that's admittedly a high
bar in this country), the numerous contradictions, and, in fact,
contradictions on top of contradictions, between Clarke's book and his
actions over the last 8-10 years totally undermine him. The most
obvious of these is his direct statement in 2002 that the Clinton
Administration passed on "no plan" for dealing with Al Queda to the
Bush Administration, but there are any number of others. Not that
those whose main motivation is hatred of Bush will care.