Congressman Casts Doubt on Clarke's Credibility

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 3/24/04 | Susan Jones

[Wild Irish Rogue]

"Shays and Peter King both voted against impeachment, but I have to give them both credit for stepping up over the last few weeks to defend Bush "

Agreed. McCain panders to the Democrats, but, occasionally he'll defend the Bush administration.
However, Hell will freeze over before Hagel will ever say anything positive about this administration- in fact, I think he's the one angling to be Kerry's VP.

[harrowup]

Shays is a weak excuse of a man, my comment really has nothing to do with him....or you, for that matter. Buzz off.

In the first place, JohnGalt's comment was central to this discussion while your observation was generic blah, blah, blah.

You have an attitude problem just tonight or is there some other burr you're working on?

[MamaLucci]

Not that it's any of your business, but he was following me from another thread after not answering a direct question pertinent to that thread.

[harrowup]

I'll decide what is and is not my business. You were out of line.

[MamaLucci]

Unless you're a moderator or Jim Robinson, YOU'RE out of line.

[arasina]

I hope people will click on the link above to the letter from Christopher Shays that was sent yesterday to the National Committee on Terrorism. It's in pdf format and includes a copy of a letter sent to Richard Clarke in July of 2000 and one to Secretary Rice dated January 22, 2001. Quite a contrast to Clarke's public testimony and "60 Minutes" interview.

Here's the link again so you won't have to page up:

http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf

[arasina]

LOL! I always notice your INTREP notations ever since I FReepmailed you inquiring about the meaning of your coded references. I don't believe I've ever seen a WHAM BAM SLAM! one to-date. :o)

[Lancey Howard]

WOW!!!

[Reb Raider]

I have been trying to catch up on my FR reading tonight and saw the link you provided for Congressman's Shay's letter. It gives great insight into Clarke's personality.

Just the letter Shay's committee sent Clarke back in 2000 requesting further explanation of how the several billion dollar budget would be prioritized as there was no plan or strategy and the way it pointed out his flippant answers to serious questions is damning. This is more telling of his inattention to the terrorism issue than anything else I have read.

I think he hoped to keep the truth of his own dismissive attitude toward a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism from scrutiny by going on the offensive. He can then claim, along with his media suck ups, that he is being maligned by that mean ole' Bush smear machine.

I hope everyone will take the time to read the letters you linked to and thanks for the great info!!

[onyx]

I do not always agree with Shays,
but he is always a no nonsense guy
and in the past, he has always followed thru.