[faithincowboys]

Good, we need more of this. Where in the Hell is the counter attack? We should attack Clarke's arguments, not how much money he's making. Clarke's arguments are utterly full of it. The Clintonistas were totally unserious about fighting terror and any honest person knows it.

Next Clarke wil start arguing that Bill Clinton had a "No 'is' with Interns" sign on the White House.

[plain talk]

We should attack Clarke's arguments, not how much money he's making.

BTW, what exactly are Clarke's "arguments"? So far all I've seen highlighted in our wonderful media is Clarke's OPINION that the Bush WH wasn't taking terrorism seriously enough. Other than a partisan opinion I haven't seen much. Just wondering.