Sandman wrote:

With two days of publication, Richard Clark's book exposing the Bush
administrations failures on the terrorist issue is already a "best seller"
(I bought mine Monday - it's clear he knows who and what he's talking
about - he was connected directly throughout to every important decision
maker in the Pentagon, FBI, CIA and White House):

Anti-Bush Books Continue to Be Big Sellers
By HILLEL ITALIE
AP National Writer


NEW YORK (AP)--Newsmaking allegations, White House rebuttals and a ready
audience for anti-Bush books have helped make Richard A. Clarke's ``Against
All Enemies'' a big best seller, publishing officials say.

``Against All Enemies,'' released Monday, had an announced first printing of
300,000 copies and an additional 100,000 already have been ordered,
according to the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster.

Any most every one sold is a vote against Bush. Nice.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

On CNN with Larry King tonight, Clark stated that his intent was to
equally criticize the Clinton administration and the Bush administration in
both his book and his testimony. He felt neither gave terrorism the
attention it deserved.
He blamed the media for spinning his book and testimony into a Bush bash.
He specifically noted that his criticism of Clinton didn't make it on the
6PM news.

Interestingly, Madeline Albrights testimony really defended Bush saying
more aggressive action could not be undertaken in a pre 9/11 political
environment.

As usual Sanders is blind to anything but Bush bashing as his mind is
consumed with hate.

ScottW

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

OK, political inclinations aside, just think for a second - two
high-level
advisers, Paul O'Neill, and now Dick Clarke - both talk about this
administration's obssession with Saddam. Don't you think where there's
smoke, there actually might be fire?


Saddams in jail. Obsession over. Next.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

On CNN with Larry King tonight, Clark stated that his intent was to
equally criticize the Clinton administration and the Bush administration in
both his book and his testimony. He felt neither gave terrorism the
attention it deserved.
He blamed the media for spinning his book and testimony into a Bush bash.
He specifically noted that his criticism of Clinton didn't make it on the
6PM news.

Well, Bush dropping the ball led to 9/11, which would have honestly
been pretty easy to deal with if they had let the airlines know
that this sort of attack was likely.

He deserves a little more of the blame, though Clinton was a
rube as well.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Jacob Kramer said:

Therefore your claims of
"Clarke's facts" are not facts. They are only back up by Clarke's
validity
and since he has conducted himself in other testimony your "facts" are
questionable.

So question them. Don't attack the man. You know what ad hominem is,
I assume.

As you may have discovered in your travels, today's "conservatives"
believe they are morally superior to those they label "liberals". That
belief imports several unchallengeable presumptions in debate. Among
those presumptions is the "fact" that anybody who attacks Dubya and
his crew is either spinning the truth or lying outright. Another is
that all such attacks are politically motivated. For instance,
yesterday the Terrierdork swallowed whole Cheney's spin on Clarke's
accusations, concluding that Clarke must be lying because Dick said
so. This despite the proven facts of Cheney's lies and corruptness.

What it boils down to is that Dubya is some kind of Holy Jesus-Freak
Emperor, meaning he's infallible, so all accusations against him are
lies *by definition*. You can't defeat faith with facts and logic.

George, if you look a bit more carefully at Jacob's post you will see that
he makes no argument to prove his point. He just claims that I've made an ad
hominem attack. In fact my conclusion was an inference from Clarke's own
statement which Jacob did not disprove.
Actually, the left has used the claim of "ad hominem attack" very adroitly.
If someone questions their record or policy or their attacks, they claim
name calling and use that as a cover so they don't have to answer the real
question about their record or policies.
Ads to the issue of moral superiority of the left consider your own little
diatribe. How many ad hominem attacks are there in it? It is difficult to
claim moral superiority over someone when you are constantly doing, even
more than they are, which you claim is morally repugnant.

Phil

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Phil said:

What it boils down to is that Dubya is some kind of Holy Jesus-Freak
Emperor, meaning he's infallible, so all accusations against him are
lies *by definition*. You can't defeat faith with facts and logic.

George, if you look a bit more carefully

I was looking at your pile of horse****.

Do you consider yourself an irrational, kneejerk reactionary pinhead
who is so rabid that your condition borders on full-blown psychosis?
Because that's how you come off on RAO.


George, you remember why you hate Arny. He just attacks with ad hominems
without reason or any sign of polite discourse or any respect for that who
his debating with. You are now what hate and it is a shame. You smart enough
not to act this way. I can respect your well reason opinion but not this.
This is beneath you.

Phil