For a good laugh read this by the great Ann Coulter. Bush people are

[MSgt213]

childern in comparison to her ability to lie in print with a straight smirk on her face.


CHAIR-WARMER ON THE HOT SEAT
Thu Mar 25, 7:02 PM ET Add Op/Ed - Ann Coulter to My Yahoo!


By Ann Coulter

Are you sitting down? Another ex-government official who was fired or demoted by Bush has written a book that ... is critical of Bush! Eureka! The latest offering is Richard Clarke's new CBS-Viacom book, "Against All Enemies," which gets only a 35 on "rate a record" because the words don't make sense and you can't dance to it.


As long as we're investigating everything, how about investigating why some loser no one has ever heard of is getting so much press coverage for yet another "tell-all" book attacking the Bush administration?


When an FBI (news - web sites) agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton (news - web sites) wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=742&e=9&u=/uclicktext/20040326/cm_ucac/chairwarmeronthehotseat

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

1. You want some cheese with that whine Ann?

I've got some fromunda for you.

[mn9driver]

2. "...why some loser no one has ever heard of..."

Coulter is in fine form. A senior advisor to four presidential administrations might be described differently by a sane person...

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madrchsod]

3. i love her ability

to write without even knowing the facts..the first sentence clues one to the fact she just writes off the top of her head and refuses to even try to verify any thing she writes. no wonder bill buckley hates her guts for giving conservative writers a bad name...

[toddzilla]

4. "some loser" ???

30 years gov't service, and a republican to boot!!


That woman is really scary. Ever see scanners? i think one day she's just going to start shaking and her head will explode.

[Hand]

5. Ah...

If only...

:evilgrin:

[countmyvote4real]

8. I hope her "scanners" moment will be caught on video.

And I really hope it happens to her before it happens to me.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lupita]

14. A touch upset that he attacked Bush, are we?

The original comments are included, just in case the post is deleted. (I, for one, am not enamored of the DU policy of just deleting Freeper posts - misimpressions need to be answered, not silenced):

> 30 years of work on terrorism, and he did nothing to stop the tide of terrorism.

Clark did about everything possible that he could to stop the tide of terrorism; helping to thwart literally hundreds of attacks. He is one of the elite anti-terrorism experts this country has. The problem is that politically motivated crime, like all crime, is not something you can stop completely. You can only reduce it.

> The only time this lapdog of appeasment has any attack in him,
> is when he attacks his former colleagues, colleagues he spoke
> of in flattering terms at the time, but now only with bitter hate.

"Lapdog of appeasement"? Just who is he supposed to be appeasing? Al Qaeda? The reason why Clark resigned from his position was that he kept telling Bush about the immediate danger of the organization, but Bush's administration kept doing nothing.

One of Clark's few criticisms of Clinton, is that the President did not start a war in Afghanistan three years before 9/11. Of course, with the Republicans all screaming "wag the dog", it would have been hard to do so. The GOP was upset even at Clinton's intervention in Bosnia (with NO U.S. casualties), despite the fact that this prevented Al Qaeda from turning that country into another radicalized Wahabist staging area.

In terms of speaking of "attacking his former colleagues", I presume you mean the Dubya Whitehouse, since the man has friends from his Reagan years, G. HW. Bush, and Clinton.

No, what you really mean by "appeasement" is that Clark believes that attacking an Arab country in a manner very reminiscent of a colonial conquest is likely to swell the ranks of Al Qaeda. To me, this is just common sense.

> Don't align yourself with this sort of self serving bureaucrat,
> or you may get the same results as Bush&co

So "self serving" is bad (except in business), but "self serving bureaucrat" is worse? Personally I'm amazed at the selfless nature of anyone who dedicates their life at substandard salary to serve this country, be it military, CIA, counter-intelligence, or family case-worker in impoverished areas.

Furthermore, Clarke's criticisms were far more likely to land him in hot water than reward him. Books like this are written all the time. Several from other people around the Whitehouse have already told this story. Clarke's book is - quite literally - the fifth recounting of the same events.

- C.D.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dax]

16. There are no factual inconsistencies-he just made the pres look good

he was just doing what Condi and Tenet are doing now. The FACTS are already out there-BUSH went on vacation during the highest terror alerts USA has ever had with specific info on an impending attack. Fact AGREED TO BY ALL. Clarke was denied access to a "principals meeting (heads of key cabinet positions who make decisions) for months-fact agreed to by all. BUSH cabinet decided to relegate counter-terrorism to a "deputies level" so it would have to be approved by the next layer FACT agreed by all. Clinton met DAILY WITH PRINCIPLES and COUNTERTERRORISM STAFF.FACT after 9/11, BushCo implemented CLarke's plan FACT COndi put CLarke in charge as CRISIS MANAGER right after 9/11 FACT how much credibility do you want?? His contentions are already proved "on the record. about the worst they could do is find someone he had sex with. He REQUESTED the cyber terrorism post FACT not a demotion. He is the ONLY official to apologize FACT. POEGOE on the other hand seems self-serving but I can't think of what it is you serve yourself maybe Koolaid?

[POEGO3]

23. I can't think of what it is you serve yourself maybe Koolaid?

What in the world is that supposed to mean?
I hope you are aligning yourself with the Jones fanatics who killed hundreds of people with poisened Kool Aid.

Dax- death threats are never cool

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

25. I am interested to see the sources for those two claims...

We get lots of uncredited propaganda around here- would you kindly post links to the sources for your two claims:
1) "Clarke was using his money to finance Democratic campaigns"
2) "This of course dovetails with his attempts to further the Kerry campaign"

(Both #1 and #2 are quotes from your post)

Thanks

[joefree1]

6. Have another glass of whine and a cigarette Ann

[Career Prole]

7. Unlike Eve

Man Coulter kept Adam's Apple

[non sociopath skin]

9. In her remarks about how the media "favour" the left....

... Coulter proves once again that the Neocons' attitude to democracy depends on who's doing de mockin'.

BTW Very few people in Europe have ever heard of this particular loser.

The Skin

[jyund123]

10. Yeah, but what to say to those who read it.

I would like to see some rational reasoned responses to her arguments.
Most conservatives like to talk about politics, but name calling never seems to change anyone's mind.

I believe the term that would be applied to most of the comments in this thread would "arguement ad hominen" which is a type of logical fallacy.

The thing I keep hearing is "Clark was there for thirty years, Clinton was there for 8 years, what did they do in all that compared to the 8 months Bush had." Specifically, I would appreciate some URLs to point people to. For instance, Bill clinton did respond to the terrorist threat with a cruise missle attack prior to BUshII. I would like to see a little material on this. I'll bet he did a lot of other things too.

Not everyone out there is a crazed robot, but they need a little more than mean spirited mudslinging to bring them around.

[Jade Fox]

11. She calls Clarke "some loser no one ever heard of" and she deserves...

rational reasoned responses to her arguments? No, she does not.

Coulter is not taken seriously by any genuine, thoughtful conservatives anyway,
so what's the point? She does what she does, I'm sure, because someone
is paying her a lot of money. I wonder if she herself believes half of her owm
poppy-cock. She may be laughing all the way to the bank.

Her job is to mobilize the ignorant for the Republican Party.

[bettyl]

12. no

I know a number people who happen to vote conservative, and pay attention to their politics. These aren't stupid people. Incidently, this may be the season where they can be talked out of Bush.

The feeling seems to be that she overstates her case, but represents a valid case. In general, something along the line of "where theres smoke there must be fire".

You can't make Coulter go away by ignoring her, and calling her names doesn't really strike me as a mature response, either.

[Jade Fox]

18. I doubt that anyone who take Coulter seriously will be talked out of..

voting for Bush. Bush's record is the only thing needed to convince
anyone paying attention that he, at the very least, is not competent to
hold the office of the President of the United States.

No, name calling is not mature. Please let Coulter know that. She is
a first class name-caller herself, as evidenced in the article above.

[wellst0nev0ter]

20. "Overstates Her Care" You Say?

"Gore advisers cooed that "Gray would certainly be one of those names that would have to be in the mix." Both were said to be "cautious, moderate 'New Democrats.'" Both were veterans, after a fashion, of Vietnam, which would make a Gore-Davis presidential ticket the only compelling argument yet in favor of friendly fire."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=7325

Perhaps you can suggest a "mature response" to a woman who advocates KILLING certain Democrats :eyes:

[dax]

17. Clinton's team also foiled several attacks...

The one I remember is the guy with a car full of explosives heading in from Canada to blow up LAX... there were others. The point is, BushCO had the info on 9/11 in their messages from abroad and intercept tapes they had-they just did not feel it was urgent enough to translate and review it quickly, and apparantly, they hired some translators who withheld info-perhaps they were IN ON THE PLOT it did take years to plan. It really should not be a "contest" between the two-Bush should have learned from any mistakes CLinton made-as CLarke said-Bush terror focus was IRAQ.