[section9]

One of the strange things that occured to me yesterday was how one of Clarke's statements reveal the mendacious nature of his case.

Clark indicated in his answer to Lehman that his opposition to the Iraq War changed his testimony. Now then; how would his opposition to the War have changed the substance of what occured in the White House between January and September of 2001?

Lehman missed that opportunity. The media gave him a free pass.

Rice is correct to be outraged. The media is allowing a chair-warmer (Ann Coulter's words, of course) to defame her without much question.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[shrinkermd]

"Clark indicated in his answer to Lehman that his opposition to the Iraq War changed his testimony. Now then; how would his opposition to the War have changed the substance of what occured in the White House between January and September of 2001?

If Clarke is seriously depressed, angry and prone to tag others for his problems, his irrationality makes sense. If not, he is one of the more devious persons to serve in this Administration. Condi will have a hard time disputing his bizarre, paranoid claims because people want to believe them just like some want to believe in UFO's.