Four successive Presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend America against terrorists
__________________________________________________ ___________________________





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3559087.stm





__________________________________________________ ___________________________

wrote in message
...
Four successive Presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend America
against terrorists

No they didn't. He wasn't put in charge until 1993. He was then demoted by
President Bush...which resulted in him writing a sour-grapes book.

I already replied. Go look for it.

BTW--Two of the examples, you failed to list sources for...so I didn't
bother to reply to those.




"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote in message
...
Four successive Presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend America
against terrorists

No they didn't. He wasn't put in charge until 1993. He was then demoted
by
President Bush...which resulted in him writing a sour-grapes book.

In article t,
says...

wrote in message
...
Four successive Presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend America
against terrorists

No they didn't. He wasn't put in charge until 1993. He was then demoted by
President Bush...which resulted in him writing a sour-grapes book.

That's about as valid as assuming Bush was after Saddam because he tried
to kill his daddy.

Was there anyone more senior in anti-terrorism among the Bush deputies
or cabinet members? Let me answer for you, NO. Clarke has every right
to be sour since the folks who were supposed to be relying on his input
were asleep at the wheel. When you're trying to warn your superiors
about impending doom, I imagine it can be a pretty frustrating
experience.

I like Cheney's comment about the senior anti-terrorism expert being
"out of the loop." Come again? The senior anti-terrorism expert was
out of the loop? That kinda proves Clarke's point, no?

Whenever a former Bush official speaks up, they're cast by their former
colleagues as "disgruntled, out-of-the-loop, partisan sour grapers" -
even if they're registered Republicans who have spent their entire
careers in public service.

Politics is one scummy freakin' business.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article t,
says...

wrote in message
...
Four successive Presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend
America
against terrorists

No they didn't. He wasn't put in charge until 1993. He was then
demoted by
President Bush...which resulted in him writing a sour-grapes book.

That's about as valid as assuming Bush was after Saddam because he tried
to kill his daddy.

Was there anyone more senior in anti-terrorism among the Bush deputies
or cabinet members?

Prior to 9/11? No.

Let me answer for you, NO.

You are correct...which explains why he has demoted after 9/11 happened on
his watch. He had been the anti-terrorism czar for eight years...and Bush
had only been in office for 7 1/2 months.

Clarke has every right
to be sour since the folks who were supposed to be relying on his input
were asleep at the wheel.

LOL. Finally, a liberal admits that Clinton was ineffective at combating
terrorism.

When you're trying to warn your superiors
about impending doom, I imagine it can be a pretty frustrating
experience.

Particularly when you'd been telling people for 8 years and they weren't
doing anything about wiping out al Qaeda.



I like Cheney's comment about the senior anti-terrorism expert being
"out of the loop." Come again? The senior anti-terrorism expert was
out of the loop? That kinda proves Clarke's point, no?

He meant post-9/11. Read the context of his comment again.


Whenever a former Bush official speaks up, they're cast by their former
colleagues as "disgruntled, out-of-the-loop, partisan sour grapers" -
even if they're registered Republicans who have spent their entire
careers in public service.

"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net...
I already replied. Go look for it.

BTW--Two of the examples, you failed to list sources for...so I didn't
bother to reply to those.


Horse****.