Against All Enemies

[still_one]

After reading the reviews on Amazon.com, it appears that the one star reviews did not even read the book. The amount of venom spewed is frightening. I truely worry for the future of Democracy

[Menshevik]

1. the freepers have sure been flooding it with bad reviews

...but i just like to rate their reviews as "not helpful" ;)

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. Look at these-definitely astroturf:

RE: ****Clarke lied under oath****>>>>CNN, March 28, 2004
Reviewer: Sara Loren from Sarasota, FL-BUSH COUNTRY
So if Clarke lied under o ath it may have been about something other than what is in this book or i t could be the same as what is in the book. And if Clarke lied under oath, he probably lie like crazy about anything where he wasn't under oath. So that means that this whole book may be one big lie, is that correct?

In which case Clarke not only lies under oath, but lies when being interviewed for a transcript for a book and lies when being interviewed by CBS 60 minutes too which means that Clarke lies all the time and is not to be trusted, right?

Makes perfect sense to me that Clarke is a liar and all of the five star reviews are by liars as well. One liar attracts another liar and another and another.

So I guess this whole book deal by Clarke is one BIG FAT LIE!

What a bunch of liars!





3 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

CNN: "Clarke...lied under oath.", March 28, 2004
Reviewer: Helen Lamar from Altamonte Springs, Fl-BUSH COUNTRY
So a liar wrote a book. Does this mean that everything Clarke said is a lie or just some of it? Did Clarke lie only once and if he did should we believe anything else he says because he lied only once or do you doubt everything he says because liars are liars and can't be trusted? Does one liar make a person a perpetual liar or just a solo liar?

In anycase at least we know that Clarke is a unqualified liar!