YAP - FOX NEWS AKA Republican NEWS

[MarkDel]

Ben,

You say Richard Clarke is credible because his contradictory pro-Bush statements came while he was a member of the administration, thus it is understandable that his views would be different then. It's a matter of personal bias based on circumstance. But for that to make sense, isn't it also logical that his views as a "disgruntled former employee" would also be subject to personal bias based on circumstance?

The facts are as follows:

1. Clarke has made BLATANTLY CONTRADICTORY statements concerning the motivations and effectiveness of the Bush administration in recognizing and dealing with the terrorist threat. In logical terms, both "A" and "B" cannot be true.

2. If his first explanation was a lie and he's now telling the truth, then he's a despicable pr*ck because he violated the trust of the American people by getting up in front of the media and making claims that he knew not to be true.

3. If his second explanation was a lie and he was telling the truth back in 2002, then he's an opportunistic despicable pr*ck because he violated the trust of the American people by lying under oath in order to sell a few more books.

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

Shapeshifter,

Another brilliant statement from you...did the guy lie at one point, yes or no? That's the real issue, and if you answer "no" then you're either not paying attention or you're simply too partisan to deal with reality.

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

Shapeshifter,

Another brilliant statement from you...did the guy lie at one point, yes or no? That's the real issue, and if you answer "no" then you're either not paying attention or you're simply too partisan to deal with reality.

It is OBVIOUS that the Republican focus is NOT on the substance of his allegations BUT rather on focusing to DISCREDIT him. Like I said, Republicans don't want to listen to anything that contradicts their view of their President.

Shapeshifter,

The credibility of ANY witness in a hearing or investigation is absolutely essential. This witness has made CONTRADICTORY statements, so the substance of his allegations, no matter how serious, must be called into question, this is how it works in the real world outside of your politcal ideology.

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since I haven't read too much into this whole issue. I've heard the synopsis of what he's saying, and the replies from the White House.

If he did lie about something, that definitely takes away from his credibility, but he's been saying a lot of things, and all we've heard from the White House is, well, spin (that's what I'd expect from any administration). I don't think the Bush administration can really keep playing this off as some "disgruntled employee" sort of thing, they'll have to address the issue head on. If they don't, it becomes fodder for Kerry.

Of this Nation,

If you haven't been following it, here's the problem with the guy's credibility. There are audiotapes and video of this guy saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE about Bush that he says in his book and in his testimony before the 9/11 panel. Less than two years ago, this guy was fellating Bush about how serious the administration was about terrorism BEFORE and after 9/11...and it's all on tape. Also, he claimed in his book that Condi Rice did not even know who Al Qaeda was until he told her, yet there are also tapes of her from 2000, before she took office, talking about Osama Bin Laden and the threat posed by Al Qaeda. The guy is obviously a liar or a loon.

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

Shapeshifter,

Another brilliant statement from you...did the guy lie at one point, yes or no? That's the real issue, and if you answer "no" then you're either not paying attention or you're simply too partisan to deal with reality.

It is OBVIOUS that the Republican focus is NOT on the substance of his allegations BUT rather on focusing to DISCREDIT him. Like I said, Republicans don't want to listen to anything that contradicts their view of their President.

Shapeshifter,

The credibility of ANY witness in a hearing or investigation is absolutely essential. This witness has made CONTRADICTORY statements, so the substance of his allegations, no matter how serious, must be called into question, this is how it works in the real world outside of your politcal ideology.

I am sure, even if Clarke was found NOT to be lieing, It does not matter what he has to say. The point is Republicans only want to hear what they want to hear and spin spin spin. This issue is pointless. You are obviously PRO-Bush and I am obviously ANTI-Bush.

Shapeshifter,

So let me get this straight...Clarke is lying, but you don't care because his message suits your political views? Nice attitude...

[MarkDel]

Political bias is an issue for both us, obviously, however contrary to what you Democrats like to think, there are some things in life that are "ojectively true facts" and this is one of those cases. In terms of Clarke's statements, "A" cannot equal "B"

[MarkDel]

Political bias is an issue for both us, obviously, however contrary to what you Democrats like to think, there are some things in life that are "ojectively true facts" and this is one of those cases. In terms of Clarke's statements, "A" cannot equal "B"

"true facts" - yea sure, can you honestly believe there is such a thing. You can always find envidence to prove much about anything. Like I said, this is pointless. I don't believe Clarke was lieing to the 9-11 commission. Atleast, he took some blame for it. Nothing which Bush has done. Just keeps exploiting 9-11 for his re-election bid.

Shapeshifter,

Well, let's get philosophical and mathematical for a second...You do believe that certain things are "objectively true" in certain situations, right? Completely hypothetical now...is there such a thing as an objective fact, yes or no?

[MarkDel]

Political bias is an issue for both us, obviously, however contrary to what you Democrats like to think, there are some things in life that are "ojectively true facts" and this is one of those cases. In terms of Clarke's statements, "A" cannot equal "B"

"true facts" - yea sure, can you honestly believe there is such a thing. You can always find envidence to prove much about anything. Like I said, this is pointless. I don't believe Clarke was lieing to the 9-11 commission. Atleast, he took some blame for it. Nothing which Bush has done. Just keeps exploiting 9-11 for his re-election bid.

Shapeshifter,

Well, let's get philosophical and mathematical for a second...You do believe that certain things are "objectively true" in certain situations, right? Completely hypothetical now...is there such a thing as an objective fact, yes or no?

This diverting from the real issue - but no, I don't believe in "objective" trues - it is all personal.

I believe Clarke might have not fully spoken out on the negatives in the past of Bush. But, I don't believe what Clarke said under oath was a lie. If it was a lie, what he said under oath, I think and believe that they should prosecute him if they so STRONGLY believe he was lieing. This is not the FIRST time that Bush and company has used this tactic of attacking the person's credibility.

Shapeshifter,

That's what I thought. So there's no such thing as an "objective fact"

That's rather convenient when it comes to rationalizing one's views or actions, don't you think? But I have heard many, many people on the political left tell me that nothing is objectively factual...amazing.

[MarkDel]

Thanks CTGuy. Nice new poster name you came up with.

[MarkDel]

Thanks CTGuy. Nice new poster name you came up with.

You read my thoughts!
I just wanted to post it....great minds etc..

Dunn,

Yes, it's been pretty obvious that CTGuy has decided to go with the multiple poster names in an effort to further disrupt this forum. He's a sad individual. So it was obvious to you as well?

[MarkDel]

Thanks CTGuy. Nice new poster name you came up with.

You read my thoughts!
I just wanted to post it....great minds etc..

Dunn,

Yes, it's been pretty obvious that CTGuy has decided to go with the multiple poster names in an effort to further disrupt this forum. He's a sad individual. So it was obvious to you as well?

yup
with the Jesus guys and this  - and there is another troll I belive - It stats to be a problem

Dunn,

Indeed it does. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, but unfortunately, this is no longer an option because nobody realized CTGuy was a troll at first. I have to confess that I'm at fault for much of this...I should have just ignored CTGuy rather than argue back and forth with him the way I did.