"The fact that Clarke read into the record that he voted for Republicans impresses you?"

no it doesn't impress me at all. i was merely pointing out the difference between a fact (something he stated while UNDER OATH meaning it must be true otherwise he is criminally liable) and character assassination (statements of conjecture on his motives with no basis in fact).

"Tenet rather than Clarke was briefing Bush directly. This is the primariy basis for arguing that the Bush
administration too terrorism less seriously than Clintons? That the President got his briefings from the head of the CIA instead of a staffer? You don't think that's a potential motivating factor for a man of Clarke's obvious pride?"

i don't believe any statement from clarke says that his "demotion" is the basis for his statement that the bush admin. felt the terror threat to be less urgent. this seems to be a conclusion that you have reached and are now stating as if it were a fact. do you have any quotes to this effect from clarke's testimony? the fact that he considered his position to have changed doesn't justify your conclusion. nor does your personal judgement on his pridefulness.

"I'll grant you that the "information" that Clarke was passed over for promotion came from the White House."

exactly. so how much is that "information", as you term it, worth as far as factual information that is offered under risk of perjury?

concerning your poll information, i'd be curious how the questions were phrased and i don't think the true effect of this testimony has sunk in yet. i don't think it will be as easy to flush this down the memory hole as some of the other bushslime.