In article ,
(Tammy) wrote:


So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that the
GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released positive
information to the press and saved the negative information until
after he left the White House.

There are three things to keep in mind.

1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
poster child for anti-GOP views.

He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current administration
after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being effectively
demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a dedicated paper
pusher. That's reason enough.

2. In attempting to discredit him, the White House and VP Dick Cheney
(amoung others) says that their anti-terrorism coordinator and top
anti-terrorism expert did not know what he was talking about because
he was kept out of the loop because the position of anti-terrorism
coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" position to a "deputy"
position.

They gave other people that responsibility, and as soon as they got rid
of him, put someone else into the job.

Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.

No, they took it seriously by getting rid of someone who wouldn't
understand the size of the problem, and who was directly in charge
during the worst terror attacks in history.

3. There is pretty much nothing new in Richard Clark's reports.
Everything that he states has been reported in the press already and
matches claims by other Bush administration officials who have left
office (and some who are still there). At most, Clark just fills in a
bit of the details.

....with some creative writing.

That contradicts other reports.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.