Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

"Tammy" wrote in message
om...
"David Hartung" wrote in message
.. .
"Tempest" wrote in message
...

You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
collaborated, right?

I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some
of
his other actions and writings.

So far there have been no outright discrepancies.

There have been outright dicrepancies in Clarke's own words.

Clarke is selling books to weak minded liberals and I can't really blame him
for cashing in.

Tempest wrote:
You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
collaborated, right?

ROFL. Great word choice.


Jeff

"Jeff Crowell" wrote in message
...
Tempest wrote:
You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
collaborated, right?

ROFL. Great word choice.

And now Frist is moving to unseal Clarke's sworn Congressional testamony
that is in conflict with Clarke's sworn 9-11 committee testamony. Clarke is
toast.

Will Clarke's collaborators in the Kerry campaign go down too?

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.

In om,
Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

: 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.

he resigned because nobody would listen.

:: 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.

"they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned... and so did the NEXT guy
who had the job, for the same reason.

:: 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.

you moron... even the Bush Administration will tell you that they are
following Clarke's plan (minus Iraq) to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat
nearly to the letter - the one he wrote during the Clinton
Administration.

:: 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.


--
in other news, Bush has called Kerry a liar on public television. also,
Don King said Kerry had funny hair, and Jay Leno said Kerry had a big
chin.

In article ,
".impervious" wrote:

In om,
Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

: 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 happen to a
: dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.

he resigned because nobody would listen.

....after eight years of nobody in the Clinton administration listening,
apparently. He also claimed that Condoleeza Rice didn't seem to know
who al-Qaeda was, but public comments by Clarke *and* Rice before 2004
show quite nicely that he was full of it.

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

"they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned...

When you're a lifeling bureaucrat, and you get demoted, it's shorthand
for "you're fired."

and so did the NEXT guy who had the job, for the same reason.

That he couldn't do the job, either.

:: 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.

you moron... even the Bush Administration will tell you that they are
following Clarke's plan (minus Iraq) to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat
nearly to the letter - the one he wrote during the Clinton
Administration.

Funny, that's not what they're saying, and they actually have Clarke to
prove it (from his own comments before he wrote the book). *Public*
comments.

There's another funny thing. Clarke says he's been a Republican, except
that for the last several years, he's been giving thousands of dollars
per *year* to Democratic politicians, and none to Republicans.

Another of those "says one thing, actually did the opposite" things from
Clarke...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

".impervious" wrote in message ...
In om,
Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

: 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.


He quit in disgust. The Bush administration is on record of asking him
not to quit.

"they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned... and so did the NEXT guy
who had the job, for the same reason.

:: 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.


They didn't just get rid of him, they downgraded the position of
anti-terrorism coordinator. According to testimony by White House
witnesses (those put in front of the panel by the White House) and
public statements from Cheney, Rice, and others, the position of
anti-terrorism coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" (i.e.
high priority) position to "Deputy" (medium priority) position. Unless
you are going to claim that downgrading the priority from high to
medium is not a lowering the priority, or claim that Cheney and Rice
are lying, you have to take the position that Bush deemphasised (lower
the priority of) efforts to fight terrorism. Or you could take my
grandmother's attitude and say that the proof is in the pudding.

Or, I guess, you could be a GOP and accuse me of being a moron and a
lefty. That way you don't have to explain why you support the man who
brought us 9/11.

Bush has claimed that 9/11 is an example of the "successes" of his
administration. He has also made fun of 9/11 and the search for WMD.
His failed policies have brought us unemployment, war, death, and
fiscal ruin. It is my position that anyone who supports Bush is a
traitor. You cannot be both a patriot and support the destruction of
this country.

"Tammy" wrote in message
om...
".impervious" wrote in message
...
In om,
Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

: 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.


He quit in disgust. The Bush administration is on record of asking him
not to quit.

Clarke had already been fired by the State Department in 1992 for lieing.
It is not surprising that GW demoted Clarke repeatedly and then put him out
at 30 years.

That way you don't have to explain why you support the man who
brought us 9/11.

9/11 was planned and put in motion long before Bush was innaugurated. It's a
complete joke to claim Bush "brought us 9/11". If you could put away your
partisan politics crap, you'd see both administrations (Clinton & Bush) dropped
the ball. However, I don't expect you to think about this rationally, you've
proven incapable.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Tammy wrote:

".impervious" wrote in message ...
In om,
Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

: 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.


He quit in disgust. The Bush administration is on record of asking him
not to quit.

"they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned... and so did the NEXT guy
who had the job, for the same reason.

:: 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.


They didn't just get rid of him, they downgraded the position of
anti-terrorism coordinator. According to testimony by White House
witnesses (those put in front of the panel by the White House) and
public statements from Cheney, Rice, and others, the position of
anti-terrorism coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" (i.e.
high priority) position to "Deputy" (medium priority) position. Unless
you are going to claim that downgrading the priority from high to
medium is not a lowering the priority, or claim that Cheney and Rice
are lying, you have to take the position that Bush deemphasised (lower
the priority of) efforts to fight terrorism. Or you could take my
grandmother's attitude and say that the proof is in the pudding.

Or, I guess, you could be a GOP and accuse me of being a moron and a
lefty. That way you don't have to explain why you support the man who
brought us 9/11.

Bush has claimed that 9/11 is an example of the "successes" of his
administration. He has also made fun of 9/11 and the search for WMD.
His failed policies have brought us unemployment, war, death, and
fiscal ruin. It is my position that anyone who supports Bush is a
traitor. You cannot be both a patriot and support the destruction of
this country.

Very well said, Tammy.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748