It's equally hard to take a guy seriously who cavorts around the world with a pop singer whose solution to the world's troubles is spending gobs more American tax dollars than we already are.
Leni
Well like Kerry it all depends on which version you believe. Like Kerry, Clarke has two stories for every subject.
They've both given conflicting statements publicly, under oath, and in writing, prior to coming out against Bush. One has to question why these individuals have flip-flopped. Hell, Condi Rice said she had lunch with Clarke several weeks after he'd resigned his post. Was the sneaky bastard trying to get some new dirt out of her? Pretend he's a friend and then stab her in the back? Why have lunch with someone you hate? Frankly, I'd be more willing to believe them if they hadn't been so supportive of the Bush White House before they penned their books. Consistency means alot to me. It goes along with credibility and O'Neill and Clarke have neither.
Some of Clarke's "facts" are not real. He doesn't tell you what a person has said that's damning, he tells you what he thinks they were thinking that was damning.
For instance, let's say Condi turned and said "nice day". Most folks would take her words at face value and assume she meant "nice day". Clark would ignore the words, look at her expression or her eyebrows, or whatever and "read" bizarre false meaning into her comment. Clark might say, "she said "nice day" but I could tell she wanted to tell me she didn't understand her job". Or that she wanted to fly or whatever. In other words, Clark doesn't tell us about Condi, he tells us about his own twisted projections.
Some of Clarke's "facts" are not real. He doesn't tell you what a person has said that's damning, he tells you what he thinks they were thinking that was damning.
For instance, let's say Condi turned and said "nice day". Most would take her words at face value and assume she meant "nice day".
Clark would ignore the words, look at her expression or her eyebrows, or whatever and "read" bizarre false meaning into her comment. Clark might say, "she said "nice day" but I could tell she wanted to tell me she didn't understand her job". Or that she wanted to fly or whatever. In other words, Clark doesn't tell us about Condi, he tells us about his own projections.
IMHO It's easy to discount a true narcissist -- because whatever they say -- it's always about them.
No one here is 'simply discounting info from people who disagree with the administration,' as you would know if you had been a freeper for more than one day.
People discount the guy for a number of reasons, the most important being Clarke's inability to keep his own story straight. Other relevent items being that Clarke constantly wants to try to discount Iraq's connection to al Qaeda, his claim that there is NO evidence out there linking the two when there is plenty of evidence out there, from memos to witnesses and even Iraqi diplomats working with groups and individuals in Bin Laden's terrorist international. Yet another item is his association with people who clearly are NOT conservative, such as Beers, a person who signed a rather stupid DemocratsAbroad.org Kerry endorsement letter, along with yet another egotist Joe Wilson who also tried to pass himself off as a 'conservative' but who turned out to be another Kerry campaign staffer. You're known by the people you associate with... when you associate with far-left groups which focus mindlessly about how important it is that we as a nation hand our sovereignity over to the UN, you cannot be trusted. Clarke, like Beers and Wilson and others before him, got caught up in their own lies and their own egos.
I can understand this when done to people like al franken or whoever else.
In what way is Clarke different from Al Franken?
But really isn't it at least the tinest bit troubling when two major figures like Paul o'neil and clarke start saying things that corroborate eachother?
Not when they cannot even corroborate themselves. And not when Clarke, a staffer, tries to play himself as the central figure in EVERYTHING. I know that kind of person only too well...
Especially since clarke served three republican presidents and was last registered as a republican.
Clarke served as a bureaucrat- they stay where the easiest paycheck is, most of the time, which is why he remained in government through FOUR presidents, including Clinton- why'd you leave CLINTON out of your list? It was in Clinton's terms that Mr. Clarke made his greatest advancements, and likely where he developed his rather large ego. Clinton did pretty much nothing on terrorism other than kissing Arafat's behind, letting Pakistani scientists have free run in our nuclear labs, and divert attention from islamic terrorism to so-called rightwing domestic groups instead. Where was Mr. Antiterrorist then?
Clarke's being a registered republican means nothing- plenty of weasels have worn the title- remember Governor Ryan of Illinois? How about Hanssen the spy?
According to Clarke he also voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. (Which puts him among a lot of watermelon greens and Democrats, I might add.) Clarke's donations to political campaigns went to Democrats. I didn't see any donations to Bush there. So what exactly makes Clarke a 'republican?' What views has he put forth since his 'turn' that demonstrate his 'Republicanness' rather than say, an affinity for dried up old watermelon leftists?
Is nothing he says valid?
Which do you mean, the things he said first, or the things that he said which counterdict what he's said before?
My puts or my calls? What vector do you suggest? True or magnetic?