Anyone talking about this Robert Clarke freak?

The only lie that matters is an "actionable lie" meaning one that has criminal ramifications. While it seems that politicians on both sides; manipulate facts and stats to fit their arguments (true but slanting), and skate close to an out and out LIE....its irrelavent what either side says was a lie or not unless there can ba actions taken....unless there is clear proof of mis deed by deception/ommission.....otherwise this is a bunch of political mud slinging with no merits, even if there is some shred of validity in the argument. If its not actionable, then its moot.

Originally posted by kramtronix
Are you going to deny that Clarke has a political agenda???

Just answer that question.

Are you saying he is doing this to get an appointment through Kerry, he already had one through Bush before he resigned and told the truth and also says he is not interested in continuing in any role in government and intends to pursue a carreer in the private sector, his coming out and speaking about this does not seem to be helping him any at all. From all indications he is telling the truth, this is coming from the Bush camp he has been working closely with the President, when its an insider telling the story one can't help but wonder why he would lie, he had to know that he would be attacked on a personal level and called a liar just like the last insider that came out and told on the Bush administration.

But Richard Clarke is a very credible source.

The book timing was covered, he wanted to put it out in December but the WH review drug on forever. So its coming out now instead of for last Xmas.

Clarke is a GOOD republican, a true conservative and an honest man... I know colonel, but there really are a few of them left out there who are not completely corrupt, money-grubbing scum.

He just wants the American people to know the truth and I thought his apology to the 911 families was pure class act.

If Mr.Clarke changes his mind I'm quite sure President Kerry will find a spot for him in his administration but I think he is a man of his word and would not take a position if offered, as he stated under oath during the hearings.



And where was Condy?

Oh yeah, lying to the TV cameras in the hall way!!!

Funny thing was, Thom Hartmann took everyone of her statements and comments later on his show and proved them all to be lies using her own WH documents and previous press releases from the WH.

Amazing how badly she lies for a lawyer? I thought all thier training and education prepared them to lie but apparently she was out with shrub smoking pot, drinking Jack and doing coke lines during that part of the course work in college eh?

Take back America for Americans, rip it from the hands of the bushonian corporate pirates!!!

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by Ra]

Being an Independent & coming down harshly on Bush as I do, I've been painted as a "Far Left Democrat" or the "Most Far Left" person on these boards! ( that one still confuses the hell out-O-me! )
But, the only party I ever belonged to was the Republican party....but back then my crew cut was bootcamp semi shaved instead of the nice fashionable buzz I sport now, and my "Kill them all, Let God sort'em out" + "Though I walk through th valley of death .....cause I'm the baddest @&!&$# ...." T-Shirts were in regular rotation.
Borderline Militia man I was.......my point being: Richard Clarke was exactly the type of Republican I was exposed to at that time. People worth emulating. Today, Tom DeLay is the prototypical Republican.

BIG DIFF !!!

Anyone else see him speaking with Tim Russert?

Rich Clark hasnt shown me anything new or shocking....all he really did was spotlight the fact that whenever an administration changes hands, there is a time period of review of existing policies, to see what the new administration wants to keep/adjust....were you thinking that it was just business as usual during a political trasnsition? Big Business would do exactly the same type of policy review after a takeover....this is not doing nothing. Were you suprised that this kind of policy review occured? or just didnt realize that it indeed takes time for the political machine to re orient itself after a party change? This is one of the reasone im not for ousting Bush...now, in the middle of a war, is not the time for a revolving political door to be going on with our policies...I think the terrorists hope and pray for a change again because they know our HUGE beurocracy is SLOW to adapt to change.

Sounds like the Bush camp kept up the same level of activity until their report was ready to present their new policy on this topic..(which btw reccomended increases in spending across the board on this BEFORE 9-11)..yes this was about to happen just before 911, but no one THEN knew that time had basicly already run out.

As for the books timing....Clark himself has said that once the white house had cleared the book for publishing, he was not involved with the release time, it was the PUBLISHERS decision. The only people i see manipulating the book thing is the publisher trying to get max $$$ for this books sales.

Wheres the smoking gun here?

The fact still remains...

Richard Clarke denounced the Bush administration for not doing IN 8 MONTHS what the Clinton administration failed to do in 8 YEARS!!!

In addition:
Not only that, had Clarke been promoted, he would have never written the book!!!

Look at the facts here, people.

[Edited on 30-3-2004 by kramtronix]

Originally posted by kramtronix
The fact still remains...

Richard Clarke denounced the Bush administration for not doing IN 8 MONTHS what the Clinton administration failed to do in 8 YEARS!!!

In addition:
Not only that, had Clarke been promoted, he would have never written the book!!!

Look at the facts here, people.

[Edited on 30-3-2004 by kramtronix]

Who knows if that is his reason for telling the truth, everytime something comes out on the Bush administration, its he is a tattling becauses he is mad at me. They sound like a bunch of kids in the sandbox, Why do you think that Rice is refusing to testify under oath, Richard Clark testified under oath, who is having a problem telling the truth?