![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
So...how about that Richard "Dick" Clarke?
I like how the White House is discrediting him in a kind way. "He was such a valuable asset, and a great worker" type compliments are flying along with, "he's revising history" and "trying to discredit us during an election year."
I also find it interesting that the National Security Counsel had to approve the book to ensure that it was not revealing any important security issues.
Which leads me to believe that perhaps the information we would get from his book would not be all that substantive, anyway.
I don't know, I think Bush has some folks working for him who don't support his agenda entirely. One would think that if they didn't want that book to happen, it wouldn't have.
I like how the White House is discrediting him in a kind way. "He was such a valuable asset, and a great worker" type compliments are flying along with, "he's revising history" and "trying to discredit us during an election year."
I also find it interesting that the National Security Counsel had to approve the book to ensure that it was not revealing any important security issues.
Which leads me to believe that perhaps the information we would get from his book would not be all that substantive, anyway.
I don't know, I think Bush has some folks working for him who don't support his agenda entirely. One would think that if they didn't want that book to happen, it wouldn't have.
no subject
Evidence to support Clark's claim, though, (and this is strictly my interpretation of evidence) lies in the fact that the W administration went so far as to blame CLINTON and his peeps for the problem. BOY, is that a reach. BOY, do they think we're stupid.
-elf-