Thank you Mr, Clarke

[VunderBob]

@askeptic

Note to self: Bushistas[ul]
[li]lieu[/li][li]rjung[/li][li]johnMace[/li][/ul]

You forgot me, asshole.

[John_Mace]

@askeptic

I am such an idiot

Can I use that in my sig?

[askeptic]

@John Mace

Can I use that in my sig?

Sure, if like me you are a card carrying idiot.

ECV:How was I wrong on either count?

Vunderbob:How could I forget you, if I didn’t know you in the first place?

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by John Mace
You are an idiot.

Originally posted by askeptic
I take that as a compliment from the likes of you. In fact I may just put in my sig.

I think you’re an idiot too. Can I be in your sig?

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

@Cervaise

I think you’re an idiot too. Can I be in your sig?

Oh shit. His sig’s gonna be longer than the credits to Superman.

[askeptic]

is this sig OK?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Wouldn’t it be simpler, and a heck of a lot snappier, askeptic, to make this your sig?

It’s unanimous! askeptic is an idiot.

[askeptic]

like this?

[John_Mace]

@askeptic

like this?

I feel like my brilliant insight has been cheapened by democratization

[askeptic]

@John Mace

I feel like my brilliant insight has been cheapened by democratization

Imagine how I feel. (what was this thread about?)

[John_Mace]

@askeptic

Imagine how I feel. (what was this thread about?)

I imagine you feel like an idiot.

[askeptic]

@John Mace

I imagine you feel like an idiot.

Damn, at first I did not see the smilie. Now what am I going to do with the brilliant insightful and scatheingly (SP?) witty 3 page flame I just wrote?

[blowero]

@lieu

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.

Congratulations, you nailed almost all the White House talking points! We would have also accepted “Clarke was out of the loop”, “But we had a map of Afghanistan spread out on the table”, or “We have no record of such a meeting between Bush and Clarke”. I see somebody heard Cheney on Rush Limbaugh’s show the other day.

[blowero]

@AmericanMaid

All I’m saying is lying about a blowjob killed no one, lying about a war has killed thousands and counting.

Are you kidding? Millions of sperm died in vain.

[askeptic]

@blowero

Congratulations, you nailed almost all the White House talking points! We would have also accepted “Clarke was out of the loop”, “But we had a map of Afghanistan spread out on the table”, or “We have no record of such a meeting between Bush and Clarke”. I see somebody heard Cheney on Rush Limbaugh’s show the other day.

Much better than I could do.

[rjung]

If they invite me to the Bushista party, I’ll bring a few candy bars to drop in the punch bowl…

[Desmostylus]

@rjung

If they invite me to the Bushista party, I’ll bring a few candy bars to drop in the punch bowl…

Just don’t drink the cordial.

[APOC]

A man of principle no doubt but one with a book to plug and a letter to ignore.

[yojimbo]

@elucidator

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?

You make a very good point but I can’t help thinking that if Clarke had of released a book saying that Clinton was 100% to blame and praising Bush to the heavens the Dems on this site would be trying the book deal self-promoting angle and the Reps would be saying what your saying.

Still a very good point nonetheless. So how about it folks surely with the info Clarke has provided it should be easy to actually prove that he’s talking shite rather than just blame him for trying to make money in the great capitalist society the world has ever known.

[John_Mace]

@yojimbo

Still a very good point nonetheless. So how about it folks surely with the info Clarke has provided it should be easy to actually prove that he’s talking shite rather than just blame him for trying to make money in the great capitalist society the world has ever known.

Not really. Because it boils down to a nuanced evaluation by Clarke of whether terrorism was a #1 priority or a #2 priority (urgent vs important). As Mr Clarke has demonstrated himself, it’s easy to spin it either way. And when he throws in obvious personal insults like implying that Condi Rice had never heard of al Qaeda, he undermines his own credibility.

There are 2 things going on here. The commission is trying to understand how our system broke down before 9/11, and the press is trying to find out “who is to blame”. The partisans are going to latch onto the 2nd issue, but I seriously doubt that those Americans w/o a preconceived agenda are going to believe that either Clinton or Bush did a good job about terrorism, and that trying to pin the 9/11 attacks on either of them is foolish.