[ProudGOP]

I don't see what everyone is excited about.

I hope I'm wrong but it seems to me that this letter can be easily explained away by saying he was being polite, professional, and trying not to burn any bridges.

I don't believe it but the partisan media is just dying to explain this letter away so they can get back to their Bush bashing.

[Pukin Dog]

I hope I'm wrong but it seems to me that this letter can be easily explained away by saying he was being polite, professional, and trying not to burn any bridges.

Congratulations, you get your wish. You ARE wrong. Picture those idiots holding Clarke's book during the hearings today. Picture them pissed off right about now. Picture Clarke looking for a slow train out of town tonight.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I hope I'm wrong but it seems to me that this letter can be easily explained away by saying he was being polite, professional, and trying not to burn any bridges.

Except in his letter Clarke praises the President's "determined, calm leadership" on 9/11. In his book Clarke accuses the President of "intimidation" on 9/11---ordering Clarke to find a link between the attacks and Iraq.

Clarke's lying in one of them.

Besides, if you're concerned about not burning bridges, would you write this book?

Something's rotten in Denmark. And it's spelled "Clarke".

[cyncooper]

Clarke has been exposed as being "creative", as Wolfowitz put it. This letter is not the terse, professional tone of one who does not agree with administration policy and thinks the president did wrong--as he plainly said on the clip of Sixty Minutes that I saw.

I'm sorry, but his credibility has taken a HUGE beating in just two short days.

And the targets of his attacks haven't even had the book in hand in order to fully refute. Wolfowitz said reporters who did get an early copy gave him certain quotes. It's going to get worse and this letter just adds to the heap of evidence against Clarke, no matter how you slice it.

[AmishDude]

Post #69 puts succinctly why this is such a hullabaloo.

[Alberta's Child]

I hope I'm wrong but it seems to me that this letter can be easily explained away by saying he was being polite, professional, and trying not to burn any bridges.

NEWS FLASH . . .

Clark denies any knowledge of the resignation letter released by the White House today.

"I never wrote that letter," he said today through spokesman Tom Daschle, "I'm still working for the Bush administration -- I've just been on vacation for the last 15 months."

Details at 11 . . .

/sarcasm off/

[murdoog]

I hope I'm wrong but it seems to me that this letter can be easily explained away by saying he was being polite, professional, and trying not to burn any bridges.

That was my impression too. Don't get me wrong. I think Clarke is a liar, a Clinton syncophant, a cad, and a poltroon. But if I didn't already have an opinion of him, this wouldn't discredit him in my eyes. It reminds me a bit of the Kathleen Willey letters that Clinton released.

There's better ways of discrediting Clarke. The whole "Condi Rice had never heard of Al-Qaeda" bit is enough, IMHO.