So how does Clarke's credability compare w/Condi's?

puting aside that our pet name for Rice is CondiLIEza for a moment and look at this honestly...

Cons are saying that Clarke has a credibility problem. But what has he said that can show to be untrue?

Similarily and probably more important, can anyone help me find out what rice said in her testimony that isn't true? It seems he continuing to claim ignorance that planes couldbe hijacked and flown into buildings alone would be enough to constitute an outright lie..though apparently not.

When Clarke appeared on 60 Minutes, CBS said they had verified with several other White House witnesses that Clarke was telling the truth....Why is this fact being ignored by the media?

...at least three (maybe more) people from government back up Clarke's story - Paul O'Neal being one. The other's name escapes my memory. I believe he was military.

Let's also think of Gen. Hugh Shelton. HE has said that the Bush admin didn't make terrorism a top priority. Now, the repubs HAVE to believe he has credibility because they referred to his comments to discredit Wesley Clark.

Also, Richard Clarke has worked for Reagan and H.W. Bush.

Who has Condi worked for?

Wasn't she scathingly criticized for some paper of thesis she wrote based on it's shoddy research of something along those lines?

* himself told Woodward that he wasn't focused on terrorism. I haven't read Woodward's book but Clarke has quoted from it and the passage was shown, IIRC on MTP.

I am finishing up the last few pages in Clarke's book now. I honestly believe that the man is quite apolitical. IMHO he has more integrity in his little finger than the whole lot of the BFEE.

.
.
.

Clarke serves for 30 years

No major attacks on the US mainland.

Condi serves for 233 days

The Twins Towers are destroyed by a KNOWN threat

Now,

What was the question?

. . :shrug: . .

That aught to slow a conversation with a neo-con down a bit.

Which was published on Thursday, April 8, 2004 by the Center for American Progress

Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0408-04.htm

have the cons actually put out ANYTHING that they say shows hwere Clarke lied? OR are they just shouting the accusation at him, hoping it will stick if they do it long enough?

I mean, if they say he is a lier, what lies do they claim he said? and they raeally lies?

The worst I've seen is a piece where someone in the Admin claimed that they remembered certain events differently, but even that person went out of their way to say that they weren't calling him a liar, just that things were happening so fast on 9/11 that recollections differ slightly. It was mainly hair splitting. I've never seen anything to refute the substance of Clarke's claims, including Rice's testimony. It doesn't seem that their attempts to discredit him have worked at all. Clarke is too sharp for that group. Since he called them out on their smear tactics from the get go, their feeble attempts to discredit him just called attention to the fact that they refused to address the issues and made it all the more obvious that they are hiding something.