SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Asymmetric who wrote (7277)3/23/2004 9:07:04 AM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
>>>The body of evidence Clarke marshals to make his case is deep and compelling. That probably is why the White House already has ginned up its efforts to discredit both Clarke and his thesis. Whom to believe? There are many good reasons to believe Clarke.<<<

I wonder if Clarke has more bombs to throw. He said in his CBS interview that the "dogs" would come at him and attack him. But, remember, he's a counterterrorism expert. Perhaps he has something he's holding back in order to counterattack Bush's attack dogs which he knew would come once he went public.

Indeed, we have an interesting week ahead of us!



To: Asymmetric who wrote (7277)3/23/2004 9:08:23 AM
From: PartyTime  Respond to of 173976
 
Anyone know why Condi Rice will testify in private before the 9/11 Commission, but is not willing to testify in public or under oath? The not in public part is similar to arguments past made about "executive privilege." But refusing to testify under oath? I mean what's this mean?