Originally posted by SDW2001
Nothing to gain but a lot of book sales. Clarke's going to be lucky not to be indicted before this over.
Think it through, sparky. In the time frame that Clarke would have been writing his book, Bush was riding high. His approval ratings were up. There was still wide-spread support for the invasion of Iraq. Polls showed that if nothing else, the American public saw him as an effective leader in the war on terror.
So Clarke thinks to self: "Hmmm, I'll think I'll write a book to make lots of money. Let's see, I'll make it fly in the face of the popular mood, and rag on a popular president. Yeah! that's the ticket!".
And O'Neil? A wealthy man, who decided book profits would be just the thing to redecorate his bedroom, I guess.
And the other Bush insiders that tell the same story, as Faust9 keeps tirelessly pointing out? Did they all get together in a secret cave, or something, and conspire to bring down the pres?
Most of you aren't really arguing anymore, there's just this robotic contentiousness. People who criticize Bush are full of shit, greedy, sex-starved geeks (?), dupes of the DNC, liars, and fools. To a man. Regardless of there past, their ideology , their record of service, or corraborating accounts .
The truth can't be known because things are complicated and everybody makes mistakes and it remains to seen and Bush bashers just wanna have fun.
Fox news in an unimpeachable primary source while the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and anybody other than Fox I left out are all part of the liberal media conspiracy and can be safely dismissed out of hand.
Like I said in a previous post, we've reached the la la part of supporting these polices, where larger and larger chunks of what we used to think of as reality have to be dismissed, refuted, slandered or denied in order to keep on believing.