It's starting...A Repug Blasts Clarke...

[imax2268]

Check this out...this was posted just a short while after the interview...but yet I can't find any credible sources as to where this repuglican got his information...I'm guessing the GOP.com...but I can't be sure...look at this crap...

----------------------------------------------------------
Who is Richard Clarke and why would he have something negative to say about our President?

Interesting question, isn't it!

Richard Clarke bet his career on a terror attack that has not happened. Richard Clarke, while working for the Clinton administration declared that cyberspace was going to be the land terrorists used to inflict their terror. HE WAS WRONG!While deeply involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict. 9/11 proved that Mr. Clarke was out of touch with reality and that his claims of cyber terrorism were not going to happen.

Let's look at some of Mr. Clarke's successes. Notice how he has given both Republican and Democratic administrations black eyes!

1.In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.

2. In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.

Mr. Clarke is retiring, not because he has served our country well, but because he was demoted by the Bush administration. Another prime example of the leadership President George W. Bush has provided while President. The man is reckless and needs to retire.

So let the truth be told. To build any type of truth on the career of Mr. Clarke is like building a foundation on quick sand.
------------------------------------------------------------
Original thread...
Original Posting(thirddegree)

Thirddegree dumbass if you ask me...

[Skittles]

1. Yes, Mr. Clarke sucked so bad they kept him around for 30 years

he was "demoted" by Condi because he wasn't a fascist republican boot-licker. Attacking the messenger - a sure sign of guilt.

[Virginian]

2. Mr. Clarke is retiring

"Mr. Clarke is retiring, not because he has served our country well, but because he was demoted by the Bush administration."

Uh, Maybe he is retiring because he can. He has 30 years of government service. I would retire after putting in my 30 years, too.

[MnFats]

3. You can bet the rent: The 'Talking Points' have been delivered...

...
to all of the right-wing talk radio/FAUX news moron.
Clarke will be SAVAGED all day and night tomorrow....hell, as you say, it's already started.....

[BigBigBear]

4. You are cordially invired

to the Unhinged Freeper thread down below - the link will take you to some doozies...

[imax2268]

5. what link...?

you should see these people at that site...they are without a doubt the most naive and gullable people I think are alive today...other than the freepers...

just go to that link at the bottom of my first post and read some of the crap they post...it's hilarious...I sometimes get to involved in the discussions but these people are rediculous...

they plagerize...they make things up...and they are just completely blind as to what is really going on...

(on edit: Can anyone find a link to what that repuke is talking about...?...I can't find anything that points to what he is claiming...)

[RamboLiberal]

6. Freepers were posting this article Friday - here's link

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143

[imax2268]

10. is it me or did the repuglican...

plagerize this article...look at the the wording of his post and the wording of the article...look at the similarities and no source as to where he got his information...

I see plagerism and plain stupidity if you ask me...someone who can't make a post unless they rip someone else's material...

[coda]

7. "...and trying to sound alarms on Osama bin laden,...."

Yeah, he needed to go. :eyes:

"...but because he was demoted by the Bush administration. Another prime example of the leadership President George W. Bush has provided while President."

Yes, it is a prime example. Let's get rid of the guy that's sounding alarms about bin laden and appoint felons from Iran/Contra, because they know how to DEAL(s) with terrorist countries...sell them more arms. While we're at it, let's appoint Kissinger to investigate any wrongdoings, too.

BTW, Clarke isn't wrong about cyber terror. Time will bear this out.


Sounds like a catchy campaign slogan...

Sound alarms about bin laden and we'll demote you and call it leadership. Bush/Cheney* 2004!

[ochazuke]

8. What they demoted was the level of concern about terrorism

They didn't demote the man, they demoted his post. Under bush, terrorism was no longer to have cabinet-level importance.

Those thugs can spin this all they want and I'm sure Clarke will have more mud thrown at him than an adobe pyramid, but the truth is that bush was AWOL for at least the second time in his life.

[Corgigal]

9. Mr. Clarke is retiring

and telling us how it really is so possibly, just maybe he can save their stupid ass (or their families) from a terrorist attack. In fact, I think Mr. Clarke gives a damn about us average Americans.

However go ahead and back your boy and when the next one happens you can look the other way again. I'm sure Bush can find lots of new young readers books to continue to read.

[maggrwaggr]

11. is that the best they can do?

That's just plain LAME.

They should just run from this one, and not try to fight back. They are stupid.

Clinton succeeded in thwarting a major attack on LAX on the millenium New Year.

Bush ignored the warnings, didn't do his goddamn job, and got us fucking HIT.

Bush oversaw the worst attack on American soil EVER.

Where does the buck stop?