Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (185747)	3/29/2004 1:21:50 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1584735

>> It truly is something else. There is no question the media hates Bush and would love to get Kerry elected. I was a bit aggravated at the media about the characterization of the hearings, as well. In general, they tried to paint the Republicans as "partisan". But I watched almost the entire time last week, and I found the Democrats on the committee to MUCH more partisan. Just the fact that Ben Venista (SP?) was on the committee says a lot. I thought Bob Kerrey started off pretty good, but then was way out of line criticizing the Fox News story that clearly showed Clarke was lying. Basically, Kerrey's criticism was an attack on Fox News, but without foundation -- he accused Fox of essentially violating Clarke's stipulation (on deep background) when it wasn't even Clarke's stipulation to make. Just horrible political garbage. Hearings like this should never be public. You always end up with partisan grandstanding, and the Dems showed us a bunch of it last week.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (185747)	3/29/2004 7:10:24 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584735

Ten, re: Jimmy Mac is spot-on. The media is going ga-ga over Clarke's B.S., and anything Bush does to counter it is considered mudslinging. It truly is something else. That's because the admin response has been personal attacks on Clarke, not on the substance of his comments. It is mudslinging. It's not "Clarke's B.S." until you prove it's BS. Since they can't, you've got to figure it's the truth. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (185747)	3/29/2004 10:20:25 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584735

Richard Clarke asked for daily meetings when the chatter suggested a terrorist strike at the time of the millenium. The pieces of information that they shook out of the agencies allowed them to foil Al Qaeda. In August 2001 Bush and Rice were asked to repeat that sucess, but they decided that they would rather take a month long vacation in Texas. pbs.org cnn.com <font color=brown>CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- President Bush's vacation home is seemingly a world away from Washington. </font>

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (185747)	3/29/2004 1:47:48 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1584735

Clarke Charges on Bush Seem to Have Sticking Power Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:32 PM ET (Page 1 of 2) By Alan Elsner WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House may have mishandled accusations leveled by their former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke by attacking his credibility, keeping the controversy firmly in the headlines into a second week, political analysts said. Clarke's charge that the Bush administration did not regard the threat posed by the al Qaeda organization as an urgent matter in the run-up to Sept. 11, 2001, has been superseded by a secondary issue of whether National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice should testify under oath before the national commission investigating that day's attacks. "The administration's attempts to discredit Clarke have backfired. They have merely given the story legs and hurt the administration. The issue of whether Rice should testify should keep the story alive for several more news cycles," said University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape. "The Bush administration and its allies have certainly not helped the story go away," said Howard Opinsky, a Republican operative who ran media relations for Arizona Sen. John McCain during his 2000 presidential bid. "Instead, they adopted the risky strategy of trying to refute his charges, which makes it appear that they have something to hide," he said. Clarke accuses Bush, who is running for re-election on his record of fighting terrorism, of being obsessed with ousting Iraq's President Saddam Hussein at the expense of fully focusing on the war against terrorism. The White House at first questioned an assertion by Clarke that President Bush asked him immediately after Sept. 11 to investigate whether Saddam was involved but on Sunday it confirmed that the conversation had taken place. When Republicans said they would seek to declassify testimony Clarke gave to Congress in July 2002 to demonstrate differences to what he is saying now, Clarke told them to go ahead. If that occurs, the issue will remain in the headlines even longer. BUSH HURT Polls have shown that 90 percent of U.S. voters were following the issue and that it was beginning to hurt Bush. A Newsweek poll released on Sunday found that 57 percent of voters approved of the way he had handled terrorism and homeland security, down from 70 percent two months ago. But two thirds said Clarke's testimony had not influenced their overall view of Bush. Half said they thought Clarke was acting for personal and political reasons. Continued ... reuters.com