Michael Bryant wrote:

From: N8KDV

Only your flapping mouth Fat Boy, only your flapping mouth!

Relax, Steve.

The only thing that needs to relax Fat Boy is your flapping mouth!

From: N8KDV

See you back here on election day, Steve.

Are you leaving till then Fat Boy?


Waddya think, o' boggled one?

Michael Bryant wrote:

From: N8KDV

See you back here on election day, Steve.

Are you leaving till then Fat Boy?


Waddya think, o' boggled one?

I think that you can't back up your ridiculous claims and fabrications,
that's what I think Fat Boy!

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.

"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

In the long run, I think most people will discount Clarke's book and
testimony.

Everyone except the wacko liberals! We'll be hearing about it until Jan 2009 when
George W. Bush leaves office.

N8KDV schrieb:

that's what I think...

No body cares about what you call "what I think".
For sure you cannot 'think' at all, ole whale-whistler.
Take a bath and beware of the whales.

Volker Tonn wrote:

N8KDV schrieb:

that's what I think...

No body cares about what you call "what I think".
For sure you cannot 'think' at all, ole whale-whistler.
Take a bath and beware of the whales.

What brand of bubble-bath liquid do you endorse?

Volker Tonn wrote:

N8KDV schrieb:

that's what I think...

No body cares about what you call "what I think".
For sure you cannot 'think' at all, ole whale-whistler.
Take a bath and beware of the whales.

Do you play with your 'torpedo' in the bath Volker?

"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.

"T. Early" wrote:

"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.

Exactly. I read it too. He can't substantiate his claim based on the
article.



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.

Their refrain is anyone but Bush. To me that means that they would vote
for Adolph, Joseph, Fidel or any of a lengthy list of despots.

And I'll put Kerry in that list right now!