here
vs
here
It’s good to know that there are still some government officials that take their responsibilities seriously.
Of course, Bush never made the “trifecta” quote/joke, either.
Turns out it was originally said by Al Gore. Bush merely stole it in the aftermath of 9/11 as an icebreaker.
“Barring an economic reversal, a national emergency, or a foreign crisis, we should balance the budget this year, next year, and every year.”
–Al Gore, Economic Club of Detroit, May 1998
Pardon me if I’m somewhat cynical about Clarke’s statement given his current book selling tour. Perhaps he might agree to donate the procedes of his book’s sales to the families affected by the 9/11 attacks.
I get the feeling Mr. Clarke may have a somewhat overinflated opinion of himself and his importance to the administration. Stung by being passed over as #2 in homeland defense, he’s spinning the administration’s listening to other equally qualified experts on counter terrorism as refusing to listen to him. They were formulating policy, just not entirely his policy, and he’s chaffed.
It’s excellent fodder for the left but while some of it is undoubtably true… it’s plainly bent.
I’m judging his book by his cover.
Note to self: Bushistas[ul]
[li]lieu[/li][li]rjung[/li][li]johnMace[/li][/ul]
Bullshit. I’m pissed at the son of a bitch but it’s not blinded me to spin on either side.
Somebody doesn’t agree with you, label 'em?
Beauty.
Sweet Fancy Moses!
I don’t care about Mr. Clarke’s character, I don’t care if he is brazenly and shamelessly self-promoting. I don’t care if he’s a disloyal backstabbing SOB and only in it for the money. I don’t care if he spends his spare time stuffing kittens into blenders or is directly responsible for the death of Bambi’s mother.
Is he telling the truth? He names names, specifies dates, makes verifiable or falsifiable statments of fact. If he’s lying, the Bushiviks should have no difficulty at all proving so. So far, they are focusing on matters of the man’s character and motivation. If the facts don’t back him up, and they have those facts, why are they going for a field goal instead of the touch down?
RE: rjung’s partisanship: What El Cid said.
RE: lieu’s opinion of Richard Clarke’s credibility: See here.
Heh, rjung is coming latent to the Party.
You are an idiot.
I take that as a compliment from the likes of you. In fact I may just put in my sig.
I hope you do!
Lest there be any confusion from my earlier post, you have my full permission to put that in your sig.
From Airblairxxx’s (thank you) article:
A slightly differently worded but similar assessment of what I said above. I think he’s well meaning. I don’t take his attack as vindictive, I just think he’s arrogant and having a hard time dealing with the fact other assets (people) were used to develop a plan and is calling that a dismissal of the only concievable, prudent course of action.
Shit! Are we talking about Westley Clark or Richard Clarke? I am such an idiot, apologies to all.(BTW my list was just dumb humor not an attempt to label anyone, not that any list I made would matter anyway)
I applaud Richard Clarke for coming out with his book and his frank testimony to the 9/11 commission. Considering most of what he says in his book is old news for those of us who have been paying attention to the news for the past couple years, I’m guessing his target audience is those who don’t take Joe Wilson’s allegations and Paul O’Neil’s allegations seriously. How many people have to come forward to convince the American people that Bush’s Administration is corrupt and manipulative? All I’m saying is lying about a blowjob killed no one, lying about a war has killed thousands and counting.
Does this mean you don’t wan’t John Mace’s quote for your sig line after all? 'Cos if you don’t, you can use this one instead:
“I just don’t get that askeptic guy, sometimes.”
I don’t get that guy very often either, but I think he means well…
Wrong on both counts.