20 things you have to believe

[Mojlnir]

I would beg to differ with Marxist on the amount of pain being caused by Mr. Clarke to the administration. The same situation is in play here as was witnessed when ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill blasted the Bushies several months ago. The Bush White House is very adept at character assassination and are hypocrites to boot. They have accused Mr. Clarke of (they think this phrase is clever) a "revisionist" writing of history, implying that Mr. Clarke (who served 4 Presidents) is prone to lying and factual misinterpretation.

The White House has released documents that it claims "prove" that Mr. Clarke was in fact fully in support of the direction taken by the Administration and that, regardless of what he says, was never "in the loop" enough to know what was going on anyway. This is of course complete crap.

A massively expensive game of smoke and mirrors has been initiated by the White House in order to pin any damning evidence on Mr. Clarke rather than mishandling on the part of the White House. The White House has not once addressed the actual issues that Mr. Clarke is discussing but rather focuses solely on attacking him and discrediting his arguments. This is not an effective tactic when the person you are attacking refuses to give in and is in fact completely prepared to rebuff every charge leveled at him. The crumbling of this plan is evident in the scrambling done by the White House over the past several days concerning whether or not Condi Rice will go in front of the same panel that Mr. Clarke sat in front of last week. The White House originially claimed that Dr. Rice did not have to testify given the nature of her position and that she had already gone before the commission (behind closed doors and not under oath) a couple of months ago. It quickly became apparent to the White House that people were not going to buy their story and today it was announced that Dr. Rice would in fact sit in front of the commission.

Mr. Clarke, in an interview on Sunday mornings Meet the Press on NBC, devastated the charges leveled against him and publicly called for the declassification of his entire testimony from 2002 (in which the White House claims he spoke differently) as well as numerous letters, memos and emails which the White House has been misquoting for the past two weeks.

 

I think it is safe to say that Mr. Clarke has done a great service to this country by stepping forward and braving the maliciously false and viciously partisan tactics employed by the White House to bury claims of wrong doing and unpreparedness as the ramblings of a demoted and bitter man. It's about time that someone stood up and told the Bush machine to go f*** themselves. Mr. Clarke defines what it means to be a patriot, not those clowns who wear flags on their lapels and denounce dissent as un-American and un-partriotic.

 

By the way, I will bet $100 that Condi Rice has a little American flag lapel pin on when she goes in front of the 9/11 comission. Anyone care to take the bet?

 

M

[Breton Thief Oriana]

This is turning into a debate too quickly. Lets try and cool down a little, its only satire, in off topic. I dont need essays, only responses.

[Adrian Laguna]

*Adrian stops rofl, copies and pastes the list, and sends it to his friends and family.

 

Add one to the list:

 

21) "You are either with us, or against us." Is a viable foreign policy.

 

When I heard that my reaction was: "WHAT THE HELL?!?!"

 

Honestly, I haven't seen such a stupid policy since my sister was in kindergarden (she's in 7th grade now). It was common, but somewhat understandable, that when she, or another student, was friends with two kids who didn't like each other, she would be made to choose one of them over the other. Like I said, this is understandable in a small child, but a country? You can't run a country like that! International, and any other kind of, politics can not be seen as black and white, never has, never will be.