How can the media give credit to a guy who says this today and reverse himself the next? I thought the commission is interested in finding the truth.

Can one say this is the truth one day then later on say that was false what I am saying now is the truth?

If you were one of the commissioners, would you believe such a guy?

Isn't that just a gimmich to sell a book?

If the commission really wants the truth how come they haven't invited Mansoor Ijaz who was Clinton's secret ambassador with the Sudanese government when he refused to accept Bin Laden? How come they haven't invited Minter who wrote a book on
why Clinton refused to accept Bin Laden when it was offerred to him?

Is it because this would put a black eye on liberals?

Come On!

Aconservative

I think it is important to be aware that Clarke has written a book and obviously wants it to do well. it's also important though not to ignore the facts because of a dislike of the circumstances in which they are released. Clarke raises some serious accusations and the government should defend them with facts not accusations of attention seeking.

As for why (according to the Los Angeles Times report) Clinton did not accept the offer from the Sudanese, that is a very good question. Perhaps he thought it was a trick? Perhaps he just didn't believe them? Perhaps the report is not quite correct? All questions that should be answered.

Paul.

The White House hasn't smeared Clarke because it doesn't need to. You'll notice that Bush and the White House have defended themselves from Clarke's accusations by pulling up previous contradictory Clarke statements and other facts that contradict Clarke's accusations. Clarke cannot back his testimony up with his own statements, let alone hard facts. The White House is not smearing, it's defending. The personal smear politics of the Clinton era have not reared their ugly head yet.
http://edude.blogdrive.com