[The Raven]

Does anyone doubt the motives of Clark/DNC/Kerry ???

[ServesURight]

NEWSWEAK

[RoseofTexas]

You forgot to add the DNC precious darlings, the media lib WHORES....I HATE THEM WITH A FRIGGIN PASSION!! This tells me one thing, the American sheeple are so DAMN effin STUPID and gullible!! Hopefully, we don't have to see Pres. Ketchup boy on Jan. take the office oath on the steps of the Capitol! That alone gives me the shivers!

[sinkspur]

Bush owns 9/11. The country formed a bond with him during those days.

Bush's support as "the man" on terror is still twice that of Kerry, 51-27.

And, in the same Newsweek poll, 65% of Americans believe that the Clinton administration didn't do enough to combat terrorism..

Clark is fizzling.

[jpsb]

If some one can point me to a good article on what an ass Clark is please do so. I need to put it up on my web site.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I hear a similar radio report (perhaps quoting this Newsweek poll, etc.) here in DC -- the local news analyst on WTOP, Mark Plotkin. Looked up his bio online which includes the following highlights: "He was an advance man and congressional district coordinator for the 1972 campaigns of Edmund Muskie, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. He served as deputy finance director for Morris Udall in 1976 and for Ted Kennedy in 1980." Now I understand why he's so qualified and gets his "The Mark Plotkin Politics Program" every Friday night. Bias? Nah -- he's non-partisan! Just ask him!

This is what passes for balanced, non-partisan news in the mainstream media. This radio station should preface every comment this guy makes with this "bias" and "background" -- either that or have its FCC license lifted.

[jla]

The Left's Smear Tactic & Dirty Trick Machine is greased and well-oiled for this campaign.
Too bad our upright, decent & resolute President will prove impervious to the vileness & immorality of the Clinton/Kerry Campaign for President.

[broadsword]

Now, just imagine what you would have thought if the title of this article was BLOW FOR CLINTON, Hmmmm?

Aren't you glad the adults are in charge?

I am!

[MJY1288]

All that lying sack of shiite Richard Clarke is a flash in the pan. The RATS might get a bump out of this, but the aftermath will hurt them a lot more in the end.

[Unicorn]

You'r nuts

[Sorcerer3]

Clarke's house of cards is crashing down. There is evidence out there that proves Clarke's assertions at the 9/11 hearing claiming that he "only mentioned the good points to make bush look good" to the press in the Aug. 2002 background briefing are freaking lies. Here is a link to a PDF file that contains a letter to the 9/11 commission with 2 attached letters from congressman Christopher Shays. One is regarding Clarke's "less than useful" information he provided to an oversight committee about funding terror just following the bombing of the USS Cole. The other letter was sent to Condi Rice on Jan 22, 2001 complaining about Clarke's lack of a plan to combat terror and outlined that he was "part of the problem". I haven't really heard anything about these letters out there in the media except from Newsmax.com. It really is interesting reading considering the fairy tales that Clarke is spewing now. Hope you all enjoy it as much as I did.

http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf

[Kirkwood]

As someone who works on the emergency medical rescue side of Homeland Security, I can assure you that none of the people I work with believe Clarke to be in any way credible, and we strongly support the efforts of President Bush during this difficult period.

[Bob J]

the percentage of voters who say they approve of the way the president has handled terrorism and homeland security has slid to 57 percent, down from a high of 70 percent two months ago.

As usual, this bit of info is spun. The ony accurate estimate of Clarke's effect is what Bush's ratings were immediately prior to his whirlwind PR tour and what they were after.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Clarke seems to be on a SYOA quest. He served under Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2, and has a trail of failures that stretch back more than twenty years. Every terrorist attack on Americans and American interests occured on his watch.

That none of the Presidents Clarke allegedly served under never terminated his employment for allowing a plague of terrorist attacks to happen, attests to the fact that up until the liberal democrats decided for political expedience to hang the 9/11 albatros around the neck of Bush, Clarke's failures were dealt with under the theory that "shit happens."

For reasons known only to him, this world class loser, has chosen to serve the forces that despise our President with a passion so extreme that what ever they feel toward the likes of Osama, Hussein or the devil himself, seems warm and loving by comparison. Who knows what vital part of ones treasures may be clamped in a vice, or by whom, when a person's actions become totally out of character for said individual.

Could be though that individual never did possess what I've mentioned that may be under stress. That could explain a lot too.

[Liberty Valance]

We're Winning!!!!!!


Bush/Cheney '04

[GrandMoM]

BUMP

[DrDeb]

THIS POLL OFFERS GREAT NEWS!

DESPITE the best efforts of the Kerry/DNC/Media cabal, Clarke has had ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON EITHER THE PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL RATINGS OR HIS MATCH-UP RATINGS VIS-A-VIS KERRY!


NEWSWEEK POLL

GWB Approval Ratings:
3/25-26/04 49% approve 45% disapprove
3/18-19/04 48% approve 44% disapprove
2/05-06/04 48% approve 45% disapprove
1/29-30/04 49% approve 44% disapprove
[Despite relentless adhominem attacks, the President's approval ratings have remained remarkably STABLE!]

GWB Favorability Ratings:
3/25-26/04 51% favorable 44% unfavorable
3/18-19/04 52% favorable 42% unfavorable
2/19-20/04 49% favorable 47% unfavorable

Match-Up with Kerry/Nader:
3/25-26/04 GWB 45% Kerry 43% Nader 5%
3/18-19/04 GWB 45% Kerry 43% Nader 5%

Took Terror Threat Seriously:
Bush Administration:
61% took seriously 34% did not take seriously
Clinton Administration:
26% took seriously 65% did not take seriously

Clark:
25% selfless public servant
50% pursuing a personal or political agenda
25% don't know (too clueless to form an opinion)

After Clark's testimony:
10% more favorable opinion of the President
17% less favorable opinion (recalcitrant leftists)
65% no difference


THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE BUTTRESSED BY SIMILAR RESULTS FROM FOXNEWS/OPINION DYNAMICS AND RASMUSSEN! The former also found no change post-Clark relative to the President's approval/match-up ratings and the latter, while initially determining that the President's ratings had dipped (one bad night of polling), now indicates that the President's ratings are virtually the same as before Clark's testimony!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/


The President has weathered Clarke, high fuel prices, stock market gyrations, increased Middle East violence, and contrived media controversies (e.g., the President's comments at the Broadcaster's dinner) AND HIS RATINGS HAVE REMAINED STABLE.

BOTTOMLINE: The President's support is rock solid (as is his Democrat opposition). The election will hinge on the 5-7% of voters who are genuinely unaffiliated and their perception of domestic/world events in October!

[Libertina]

Don't miss the double entendre of "BLOW" (another name for Coke) and DON'T think it is accidental...

[Republican Wildcat]

Blow For Bush

Media manufactured.

[stripes1776]

Blow For Bush

For a second there, I thought Monica had made a return visit to the Oval Office. But a blow for Bush seems to be of a different character than a blow for Clinton.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats have given it their all. No one believes the President had a crystal ball to see 9-11 coming and prevent it. The real issue rather should be what did President do in response to 9/11 and how effectively has he protected the homeland from further terrorist attacks since? President Bush's record speaks for itself as much as the Democrats, through Richard Clarke, try their damnedest to discredit him for what happened before 9/11, the fact of the matter remains no one else would have been completely prepared. The Clinton Administration had eight years to deal with Al Qaeda and did nothing. The contrast between their duessetude and the Bush Administration's giving terrorism priority for the last three years is instructive. When all is said and done the American people can tell the difference between playing election politics and leadership. And the Democrats have contributed blame, whining and finger-pointing but have yet to show real leadership on the greatest threat facing our country today and Clarke can't help them in the one area they're weakest and where they lack credibility.