Did you vote for George Bush in 2000? MR. CLARKE: No, I did not.

So what? Lots of Republicans vote for Democrats and vice versa.

 

Why would someone, who desperate to change the Clinton policy of policing terrorism, vote for Gore? That makes no sense. It has become clear to me that Clarke's umbrage is based upon his 20/20 hindsight rather than his thoughts at the time. I am now guessing that his current criticism of Bush is to deflect what was clearly to be the result of the 9/11 commission. That is Clarke, more than any other American, was responsible for not preventing 9/11.

 

That's a cute approach. Way to add 2 and 2 and come out with 15, . He wanted to upgrade the Clinton policy on terrorism, but I saw nothing that implied that he was "desperate" to change it. The only time he seemed desperate about anything was when the Bush admin wouldn't listen to him about Bin Laden. He was cut out of the loop and the ad hoc meetings between the intelligence agencies were stopped. How the hell does that make him responsible for 9-11?

BTW, I wanted to vote for McCain in 2000, does that make me a staunch Republican? Most of the people in this country aren't firmly entrenched as a far right or far left representative. Career folks, like Clarke, tend to vote for those who they see as the best man for the job. In 2000, he didn't think that man was Bush. No matter how much Fox News and their buddy Bush want it to be so, this isn't about partisan politics.

 

Clarke need's to learn how to get your point across without dragging yourself through the mud.

 

Once again, you're using words, and they don't mean what you think they mean.

 

Maybe he thought he'd have a better chance of Gore adopting his strategy than Bush. If he did he was probably right.

 

Could be many reasons. Could be that he saw Democratic foreign policy, sans Monica Lewinsky, would be better than Republican foreign policy, sans a President with any apparent apptitude for diplomacy.

Could be that he just had a visceral dislike for this Republican candidate. I have to admit, I get that reason from the lifelong republican who offices next to me and has voted for every republican in recent memory until this particularly odious breed of empty suit.

Perhaps he thought there might be a problem with foreign policy being run by the CEO of Halliburtan. Who knows? But I will submit that each of these reasons makes some sense.

And if you disagree that they make any sense whatsoever, well, you might well be the mongrel spawn of various types of hoofed quadrupeds.

 

Okay, there are some explanations, short of insanity, why he would vote for Gore over Bush. One could even come up with noble reasons why he wanted Gore.

To me, those reasons are not reasonably plausible. They don’t make sense. They belong in the realm of UFO explanations. I suppose anything is possible.

Reconcile his desire for Gore and his request for the #2 position in the new Department of Homeland Security with his newfound contempt for Bush. By far the most plausible reason is that Clarke believes in his own sanctity despite his failure to prevent 9/11. I said this a week or more ago. Clarke is trying to rewrite history. Many of BS politics folks agree with that because they have posters of GWB with "I don't want to believe" written at the bottom.

 

I don't believe Clarke has called Bush "reprehensible". I hate Bush's policies, but don't think Bush is a reprehensible man. He did his job, even though the man he voted for wasn't in office.

Because he was a loyal employee?

Because that's what you do - its pro forma.

Ease off on the hyperbole there. He hasn't sold anyone out.

Perhaps. Is there anything that would have convinced YOU? No. So when you say he's lost credibility, its really a moot point.

I just find it heartening that now things that don't necessarily deserve press are being trotted out against Bush. The Democrats and the press are finally taking the gloves off. And with how many things this administration has gotten away with, there's a lot of stuff to be mined.
I don't consider Clarke the messiah, and the whole national guard stuff was superflous. But its turn about for the Republicans, who hammered Billy Bob for far less. Pardon me if I don't shed a tear for this administration.

 

Let's start with the first sentence. If you can handle this, will go through the whole post.

On what basis do you say that Clarke found Bush reprehensible? Again, you're using words and I don't think you know their meaning.

 

I love the smell of unintentional comedy in the morning.

Smells like...victory.

 

I am just curious as to why it is so important to label this guy as either a savior or a traitor. I think of him more as an "Everyman" and assume he has all the foibles we would all have in his situation.

Is he engaged in CYA? I would think so, since anyone of us would be doing the same thing. I've been working in large organizations for many years, including a stint in an executive branch of the US Govt. and a current stint in a Fortune 500 company. Have I lied to CYA? Of course not. Do I try to justify the decisions I made years ago. Yes, I think its natural. And does the passage of time color the way I view the past? Again, I think its natural.

Does the fact that this guy is going to make money on a book affect how we should look at him? Yes, a bit. Does the fact that he has apprantly become very disillusioned with the Republicans? A bit. But not that much, because many of us have become dillilusioned over time with the Republicans.

We do like we do with every issue. We process those things that may color the perceptions of the author and then try to see what truth there is in what he says. Do I have any reason to think his motives are less noble than any of the folks in the Bush Adminstration? Absolutely not. Which is why attacking this guy for these minor issues looks so foolish.

Find some glaring factual inaccuracy, and we can go from there. But when the front page story today in the Dallas Morning News is how the Bush Administration is now grudgingly admitting that Clark's rendition of the Sept. 12 meetings with Bush was accurate, I find it hard to focus on the alleged biases that you all are so shrill about.

Everybody is a bit biased, and everybody has a personal agenda. Can we f-in move on now?

 

oman, I pretty much agree with what you said. I still find Clarke somewhat believable, especially on the larger picture issues. What I disagree with is how the hate-Bush crowd is trumpeting his statements as a serious indictment of Bush's pre-9/11 efforts. The facts behind what Clarke says aren’t that earth shattering, i.e. Bush didn’t have terrorism as a high enough priority. We already knew that. Moreover, his post 9-11 criticisms center around going into Iraq. Those are differences of OPINIONS rather than clear indictments of Bush policies. The hate-Bush crowd has tried to turn those differences of opinion into something that they are not. I think even Clarke has tried to do that too, i.e. turn differences of opinion into statements of fact.

This was the same thing that happened when Tenant gave his speech on WMD intelligence. He even laughed at the questioner who asked about the Village Voice article that I've seen referenced here on BS. People on the left are so wrapped up in their conspiracy theories they turn differences in how people interpret facts into indictments of character. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, to reasonably discuss the issues and politicians use their anger to dupe them into supporting them right or wrong. The left really, for their own good, need to put aside their hatred of Bush and focus on the issues.

 

When you stop looking at this issue as simply part of the "Bush haters conspiracy theorires", perhaps there will be room for discussion.

You posts can make a lot of sense until you go into your attack minded rifs.

 

AM, I have personally responded to this comment you love to make in the past, as have many others. Please try and actually read it this time: It's BECAUSE of Bush's stance on key issues that we hate him. I'm not even a real liberal (social liberal/financial conservative), and the actions of this President gall me. I didn't want him in office in the first place, but I didn't hate him. His stubborn insistance on giving money to the church with his unconstitutional "faith based initiative" (let's face it, pre-911, THIS was the admin's highest priority) annoyed the hell out of me, but I didn't hate Bush. His ridiculous tax cuts angered me since they were totally undermining more than a decade of fiscal responsibility. I then started to dislike the man. I thought he did a good job in Afghanistan. He went into Iraq, against the wishes of a large portion of this country, and an overwhelming majority of the population of the rest of the world. He did this without justification, and without UN support, squandering all of the goodwill we had. I began to hate. His dirty campaign tactics, tacit disregard for human life (at least human life in the middle and lower economic bracket) and his series of lies to the nation solidified that hate. We don't dislike his policy because we hate the man. We hate the man because we despise his policy. One of these days you will understand this distinction.

 

I would agree that there is a small sliver of the hate-Bush crowd that comes to its hatred by an examination of a broad range of issues. I for one also don't like the faith based initiative stuff. My objection is against those who take a single issue and decide to hate him, hate him because he comes up with nicknames for people, hate him because he's stupid, hate him because he's the son of a President, hate him because he's says he's from Texas yet he went to Yale, hate him because he served in the national guard, hate him because he was in skull & bones, hate Bush but not those Dems that voted to support the war, etc. etc. etc.

It's imposible to discuss the issues when people throw out the statements "Bush lied" or "Bush said the Iraq was an immenent threat", etc.

 

Now hold on one minute. What ************** hates him "because he is from Texas"?

 

Oh give me a break.

Next time you have a beer, have one on me, and toast your mighty intellect and the fact that Jesus gave you such a gift of analysis. It must be nice looking down on the rabble, poor souls, unable to free themselves from the bias and hatred that blind them.

 

Maybe we can Google: Hate Bush from Texas, or something.

Anyway,

 

"Meanwhile, a Newsweek poll released yesterday found that 65 percent of Americans say Clarke's testimony hasn't affected their opinion of the president."

Think about this, when combined with other opinion polls that show about a 50-50 split on the president.

48% of americans already hate bush (so you say). To them Clarke's testimony is just this weeks installment of the 5 minutes of daily hate, right? That leaves only 17% of americans as republicans who say Clarke's testimony hasn't affected their opinion...

So the other 35% of americans are republicans who feel Clarke's testimony has affected their opinion of the president?

Well, we know where you fall - with a whopping 17% of americans. I'm sure you have lovely company.

Your boy is so ****ed.

 

OVER-REACTION ALERT!!! WHOOOP-WHOOOOP!!!

The commission could lose its credibility because it allows a disgruntled ex-employee to testify. "Vindicative" testimony includes
a) saying "I was taken out of the loop", and
b) important people wanted to play pin the attackey on an iraqi

In truth, I'd say hs testimony was no big deal - the media may be making a big deal out of it, primarily because the republican administration's #1 priority right now is to send out all resources to try and drive Clarke into a loonybin.

Anyway, some of the best people in the nation are on that commission. I think the integrity of the commission will survive. Unless of course it does not 100% exonnerate a sitting republican president and his staff - in which case it is obviously a partisan and disruptive sideshow.

 

Who is "we?"

See, that's the whole reason that Clarke's testimony is explosive. Us political geeks are aware of the basic facts. Clarke added some new details, but didn't really change my impression in any major way. But for some reason, the media and the Dems and Washington in general are treating his critique seriously. Right now, the polls show that Bush has a big edge over Kerry on "which candidate will do more to protect us" type poll questions, while Kerry kills Bush on domestic issues. If Clarke can erase the first gap, Bush is toast. The Bushies are afraid of what Clarke can do to erase the public's erroneous image of Bush as stronger on the war on terror than the Dems. To whatever extent he gets voters to see the gap between the Stupid Pointless War and the war on terror, he helps Kerry. He's dangerous to them, which is why the Bushies reached for the "perjury" thing. Clarke called their bluff, and the newly backboned Dems went along.

Release his earlier testimony? Fine. Release everything. There's a lil' 17 page chapter on Oughta Be Mushroom Cloudy Arabia that would make interesting reading.