He admitted he would not qualify for "a job" with the CIA because he is not an "Arabist". He does not need to be one as the head of the agency. Duh.
Duh. If he can't get an entry-level job with them, how should he be considered qualified to run the joint? Seems to me, you'd want someone who knows the culture of CIA
-it's strengths and weaknesses, inside and out-and not someone who says he couldn't get a job there. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
And NWA742, I see you couldn't take Diamond's advice, so why not either do so, or stop your bellyaching?
Now, firstly, I understand where you're coming from, Republicans often talk about Clinton or Kerry in a thread about Bush. What you don't understand is that THIS IS NORMAL, AND IT HAPPENS FROM BOTH SIDES.
Horse shit. If it's a comparison of Clinton v. Bush, or Kerry v. Bush, or Gore v. Bush, then I don't have a problem with it. But it wasn't about that! It was about a Bush nominee, for Chrissake, and yet a RWAK still tried to turn it into some kind of referendum on Clinton and Kerry! If Clinton and Kerry have something to do with the subject, fine, but they didn't. That's called trying to deflect criticism, but you're too blind to see that.
Back to the subject. If this is the best Bush can do, I think he should start over again. Do you conservatives have anyone else you'd like to see as a candidate, besides Porter Goss?