[rantaway]

you misunderstand.

he worked for Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and W right? (i may be wrong)

CNN claimes (not that they haven't lied before) that he is still a registered repub and that he voted for W in 2000. i'm just trying to get my facts straight here and figure this guy out

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I repeat: did you read the original thread wherein it was mentioned that on 60 Minutes Clarke claimed "it is "outrageous" that W is running for re-election on the basis of strong leadership on national security, whereas he in fact did a poor job."?

I repeat: do you really think that anyone who makes a statement like that could possibly be, as you surmise, a "Bush supporter"?

I would encourage you at this point to read more and post less. This will be my last response to you for the time being.

[Alberta's Child]

CNN claimes (not that they haven't lied before) that he is still a registered repub and that he voted for W in 2000. i'm just trying to get my facts straight here and figure this guy out.

I think that is standard practice whenever someone wants to enhance their credibility in a public forum like that. Don't believe a word of it.

I don't know if he voted for Bush or not -- but he's telling people he did in order to make himself more credible.

[Carolinamom]

Clarke was a civil service employee, thus continuously employeed during various adm. and not easily fired. Clinton had Promoted him; Bush Demoted him; Clarke tried to get a job w/Homeland Security but did NOT get it. Those facts + his now being a co-teacher w/Kerry advisor certainly make him less than creditable about the Bush adm. Gen. Alex Haig said today on Fox that it was evident that Clarke is "sucking up" for a JOB w/future Kerry adm.