Please don't ashlandbuck. For it is I who truly feel sorry for someone like yourself who is so blinded by Republican propaganda. (As I feel sorry for those who are blinded for Democratic propaganda). I just left a meeting with one of my coaches who has been a Bush supporter, is a proclaimed conservative, and he is having difficulties with the current administration. I ran by him (actually had him read) your "proof" about Clarke and before he saw my post his first comment was almost indentical to my post. Clarke was in national security for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. He obviously knows how to keep his position through different administrations and it isn't by telling someone in an interview that his boss, the president, has bad policies. I am amazed at your naivete.I feel bad for you prof, you spent a lot of time on you post concerning Mr. Clarke and his allegations. Now there's no credibility to it.
I guess the commission is made up of liars too? Where is your blind propaganda to shoot down what I posted. To remind you it was:
Or was it Powell who lied? Follow the timeline, it isn't difficult.BTW, the commission did back up Clarke's assertion that on 01/25/01 (5 days after the inauguration) he presented two planning documents from the Clinton administration that called for a series of steps to pressure al-qaida. That is significant since Powell claimed that Clinton aides extensively briefed the incoming Bush team about the al-qaida threat, but didn't provide any specific plans. Not until Sept. 4, 2001 did the Bush administration have a plan for al-qaida (according to Powell).
And you are so quick to jump on Clarke. What about your president Bush who said in an interview that "I didn't feel a sense of urgency." Was he lying during the interview or was he lying when he said that his administration was aware of the terrorist threat from day one? Which is it? It seems to me that Bush's comment actually SUPPORTS what Clarke said.
Upvote
0