To: FairOpinion
Clarke deserves credibility. Why?
He was a career anti-terrorism expert in the government.
On whose watch we were REPEATEDLY attacked by AQ -- and the plot for 9-11 was INSTIGATED while HE was personally in charge of counterterrism in this country.
He could have quietly faded away.
Not this vain man.
He has a lot to lose by attacking the president in this way.
Hardly. In fact, he has more to gain then by just keeping quiet.
Clarkes bold criticism shows courage and is driven, in part at least, by outrage at the presidents decision to campaign on the Iraq-9/11 connection.
Then why did he WAIT so long to show this courage and drive?
And if the Bush Adminstraton was so damn bad, why did he try to get the #2 job in Homeland Security?
9 posted on
03/22/2004 10:05:20 PM PST by
Howlin
To: Howlin; Destro
I objected to that article as well -- when I read it, including Destro's post underneath, he mentioned it somewhere that he just used the article as a setting to express his opinion, his "thesis", in other words, I don't think he agrees with the article either -- read his post underneath.
Clarke has ZERO credibility.
10 posted on
03/22/2004 10:09:09 PM PST by
FairOpinion
(If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
To: Howlin
Clarke said Bush pulled him into a room and asked him to check right after 911 to see if there was an Iraq connection and though "he didn't ask me to make one up,it was quite clear he expected me(Clarke felt pressured ) to find one."
If you watch Clarke's demeanor,he is oozing venom. Strange that Clarke exibits such resentment and anger in light of the urgency of the times and the logical assumption the President would have that Iraq could be tied in to 911.
14 posted on
03/22/2004 11:38:36 PM PST by
MEG33
(John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson