Clarke’s Coziness With the Media Might Help Him Win War With Bush

Washingtonian ^ | March 26, 2004 | Harry Jaffe

[MJY1288]

"Anyone that quotes Lehane for facts is not a Republican"

PKMom, In my best Harry Truman voice "What we have here is, is a liberal dragged from his shameful closet"

:-)

[Destro]

Coll describes Clarke as “a shadowy member of Washington’s permanent intelligence and bureaucratic classes . . . who seemed to wield enormous power precisely because hardly anyone knew who he was or what exactly he did for a living.”

Did I guess right? From an earlier post of mine - Destro's Thesis: Paul O’Neil then Richard Clarke point to something I have observed for a while now. There is an active revolt by the beaurocratic careerists and other Washington establishment types who are actively out to get Bush.

Why?

Because for the last few decades the religion/operating philosophy of these types have been multilateralisim. They are a diverse group. Some are pro United Nations and are angry that Bush has cut the UN off (In this bracket I will place Clarke). Others are heavily invested in NATO and Europe's EU (In this bracket I will place Paul O’Neil) and are not very happy that Bush has cut off NATO's core countries (specifically Germany) and has made nice with Russia - a nation these NATOites want to cut apart and exploit like the "good old days" under Yeltsin.

These beaurocratic careerists and other Washington establishment types come from both the Republicans and the Democrats. This cabal does not serve to preserve the Constitution...they serve other masters/interests. Remember Clinton's Strobe Talbot's comments that we were headed for a "The Birth of the Global Nation "? (see article below).

No historian of American politics has ever seen such a back stabbing orgy as we have witnessed against this president. It is not a coincidence. It is orchestrated. I do not think Kerry behind this per say but rather he is a passive beneficiary.

These powers that be hope that by helping elect Kerry they will make him beholden to their globalist agenda.

[PhiKapMom]

You are hard headed to go with everything else. Your doom and gloom is aimed at the wrong people -- the Freepers on here are all in agreement -- you are a troll! It is so obvious and your doom and gloom is not going to work on any of us.

Threatening us that we are not going to believe 3 Nov is something a RAT would say!

[raloxk]

I am not arat, I am preparing my self psychologically for a Bush loss. My guess right now is 47-48% for Bush

[PhiKapMom]

"What we have here is, is a liberal dragged from his shameful closet"

You just made my burst out laughing with that one! He doesn't even know what he is posting that sounds liberal -- that made me laugh too!

[nopardons]

You have been flitting from thread to thread posting your childishly silly doom&gloom, getting your head handed to you.So one has to ask,are you old enough to vote,is this your first time to be able to vote, and just WHY, exactly, do YOU imagine that YOU know more than everyone else here?

[PhiKapMom]

That is a very good analysis. Cannot believe the backstabbing we have been seeing since Day One! The Texan sure has shaken up D.C.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I only see one individual here who is "oblivious" and that be YOU!

If you watch the polls, and you surely do, you will notice that President Bush stays strongly above 48%.

Even in a liberal manipulated and skewed poll, they cannot disguise that 48% that is the un-moving base.

As far as 2000, The Dems stuffed the ballot boxes in countless districts controlled by the Rats. The only way to get a "Pregnant chad" is by putting several ballots together and punching them all at once. It is also suspicious that only heavily populated Democrat voting districts showed these phenomenon on their ballots.

There are new voting machines that cannot be tampered with this time around. I firmly believe that if they were in place in 2000, Bush would have won quite handily in all the close and contested states.

[raloxk]

I am just more realistic than most others here. I very much beleive in history and candiadtes with 44% in the polls dotn get re-elected

[nopardons]

Go back to DU!

And do at least try to learn something, from your time here. :-)

[raloxk]

"If you watch the polls, and you surely do, you will notice that President Bush stays strongly above 48%.

Even in a liberal manipulated and skewed poll, they cannot disguise that 48% that is the un-moving base."

I suggest you check some post January polls then.


"As far as 2000, The Dems stuffed the ballot boxes in countless districts controlled by the Rats"

then they can do it again, it wasnt a one time thing

[MJY1288]

Give it up redux, oops, I mean raloxk.

First off, you don't speak for most Americans, Most Americans wouldn't speak to you, because you don't share in this dream we call America. You, like every other liberal, blame America first and base everything on feelings instead of principles.

If you claim not to be a liberal, do me a favor, just STF out of the way while the rest of us take this country back from these no count liberals. Just vote for Dubya and stand back and watch the 40 year old strangle hold the liberals had on this country, disappear :-)

[PhiKapMom]

This is March and the election is November and you are preparing yourself for defeat? ROFLOL!!!! Would suggest that you find something else to do with your time if you know this little about politics. Or better yet, observe without posting your doom and gloom. It makes you look like the chicken that ran around shouting "The Sky is Falling!"

Most of America is not liberal and Kerry is the #1 Liberal Senator in America -- when it comes election day, you will see another Dukakis -- America is not ready for a full blown liberal and never will be. Clinton ran in the middle -- his wife is much more liberal then he is even though I cannot stand either of them.

[nopardons]

How old ARE you? If you wish to not answer that, at least tell us hows many times you have voted for a president and for whom.

FYI...Ronald Reagan, at this point in his first term, had lower poll numbers,in EVERY poll, than President Bush has right now and there was NO FNC then, NO Internet, NO national talk radio shows and NO FR!

How can you "believe in history", when you don't know any?

[MJY1288]

It's a damn good thing your honorable Seantor, Zell Miller, isn't here to take you behind the woodshed and learn you a few things

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Do you believe the polls have some kind of accuracy?

[PhiKapMom]

There is one huge difference as I have had to point out to other hard headed folks on here -- we control the DOJ, we will have poll watchers out all across America in every precinct, and there will never be the fraud of 2000 again much to the chagrine of the RATs.

Poll watchers are being trained across the Country to know when to challenge someone that is suspicious. We are NEVER going to allow the RATs to have their fraud go unchallenged again where over 100% of the people vote in a precinct.
We have lawyers that will be standing by to assist in the challenges.

Here in Oklahoma we had poll watchers at the precincts during the Right to Work vote because the Clintons/DNC/RATs had paid to send in union thugs across the State. Didn't work -- we passed Right to Work. Out of State contributions made up 95% of the RATs NO campaign but we had 95% contributions from within OK and we won by a fairly large margin and those union thugs got handed their heads on a platter as several precincts around the GM plant in Midwest City voted YES for Right to Work.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"it isnt me you idiot!!! it is the millions of voters who are only casual listeners to what is going on."

I understand what you are saying. It is a long way till November. If Clarke says Clinton did better than Bush and people believe it, it does not matter very much because Clinton is not running for office. It's Bush vs. Kerry and Kerry is the one whose track record on terrorism matters. And Kerry's record is terrible.

Condi Rice is really the main one under attack. It is up to her to fight for her reputation and that of the Administration. She HAS to prevail for the sake of the election and history. It is part of her job now. I will be disappointed if she does not keep after this for as LONG as it takes to discredit Clark and get those poll numbers back up.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"it isnt me you idiot!!! it is the millions of voters who are only casual listeners to what is going on."

I understand what you are saying. It is a long way till November. If Clarke says Clinton did better than Bush and people believe it, it does not matter very much because Clinton is not running for office. It's Bush vs. Kerry and Kerry is the one whose track record on terrorism matters. And Kerry's record is terrible.

Condi Rice is really the main one under attack. It is up to her to fight for her reputation and that of the Administration. She HAS to prevail for the sake of the election and history. It is part of her job now. I will be disappointed if she does not keep after this for as LONG as it takes to discredit Clark and get those poll numbers back up.

[Dane]

I am just more realistic than most others here.

JMO, but predicitng something 7 months before is not being "realistic". A lot of things can and will happen.

I guess you think that Miss Cleo is also "realistic".