Who would be an "acceptible" dissenter to the Bush administration?

[Postman]

Every one of these insiders who have come out and blown the whistle on these corrupt criminals in the WH has been attacked as either "sour grapes", "selling a book", or what-have-you....

Apparantly, no one who dissents from what they have done or lied about has credibility to them.

Does everyone who points the finger at this fascist group have an axe to grind?

I've never seen such a group of slime dodge responsibility soo often and place blame squarely on someone eles's shoulders.

[patricia92243]

1. If Bush confessed, they would say "he's had a nervous breakdown" (from ...

working too hard of course.

[corporatewhore]

3. no they would blame it on clinton or his penis

[bain_sidhe]

2. No one. The very act of dissenting

proves (to the chimpies) that they lack credibility, let alone honor, character, moral standards and, probably, married parents.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. Ask this question: "Who did Hitler see as an acceptible dissenter?"

[KissMyAsscroft]

5. Who cares what they say...

The more people that come out, the more credibility they lose. And no amount of Condosleeza blather can change that.

Besides it takes attention off of their campaign, and makes them spend more cash.

[Kimber Scott]

6. Ridiculous. Political. Sour grapes.

These answers aren't going to hold out much longer. These people are going down!

[H2O Man]

7. You're so right!

It's actually getting funny to watch, in a way. I think it is encouraging to see that an increasing number of sincere republicans and fiscal conservatives are publicly rejecting this radical right wing faction. I'm in the middle of Kevin Phillips' "American Dynasty." I highly recommend it for anyone interested in knowing the ugly and criminal connections of the family to banking and oil interests, the dark side of national security and the military industrial complexe, and what truly repulsive people the bush's are. While he was not directly connected to this administration, Phillips has republican credentials and insight into four generations of the bush family.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Colin Powell

(in my dreams)

[proud patriot]

9. The "bush faith" is a new religion

dissention is not allowed in this new religion.

[Webster Green]

10. They don't have any other options.....

The charges are too serious. They have to try to discredit the messengers. The truth is becoming pretty obvious to all but the hard core right wingers, who will remain in denial till the bitter end.

How do you like your toast, smirky?

[LynzM]

11. I wish I could agree

That they are going down. I've met a lot of people who still hold them as 'moral, good guys'. I actually am trying to formulate a response to a post on another board, about how Clarke was just doing it to sell books and 60 minutes only aired it because they have a stake in the book, how Clarke was demoted because he was 'out of his area of expertise(computers), Lieberman's quotes, etc. It's frustrating. We are expected to take all of BushCo at their word for everything, but no one takes any dissenters at their word. Regardless of if Clarke has 'sour grapes', his testimony, in conjunction with everything else that has been revealed, ought to at least merit an investigation into who in the FBI and CIA knew what, and when, and was was (allowed to be) presented to the president, and when. I totally agree that even if one of the higher-ups admitted to anything, they'd say it was 'forced' or a 'breakdown' or something along those lines. I will keep my fingers crossed that this is the start of public knowledge, but I am doubtful, still.

[Zookeeper]

13. It certainly doesn't help...

that Bush & Co. are molly-coddled by the press. What should be scandals are revealed, then quickly swept under the rug.

[Brotherjohn]

12. "Why did he wait so long if he had these concerns?" Well, he DIDN'T!!

There's the little matter of the Time Magazine Article of August 4, 2002 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html).

He spoke out, and plenty, about the administration's dragging its heels on terrorism, and specifically Al Qaeda. Yes, he is quoted in the article as saying that the administration's review of the Clinton plan moved "as fast as could be expected." But he is also quoted and mentioned throughout as being VERY frustrated with the lack of attention being given Al Qaeda by the Bush administration. Also, given that the Bush administration was reviewing a Clinton plan, saying that it was being reviewed "as fast as could be expected" wasn't necessarily a flattering description.

Then he wrote a book about it. I'm sorry, but it takes a little time to write a book. Besides, Iraq changed things in that it took even more resources away from the fight against Al Qaeda. Before 9-11, and certainly before Iraq, Clarke felt the WH was dropping the ball. After Iraq, he just felt they plain ignored it.