Shooting the messenger
Conservatives should hail former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke,
but instead they're smearing him.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James Pinkerton



March 29, 2004 | Conservatives, ever suspicious of Big Government,
should love a whistle-blower -- unless, of course, he’s former
counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. The Washington Times calls Clarke
"a political chameleon who is starved for attention after years of
toiling anonymously in government bureaucracies." For neoconservative
columnist Charles Krauthammer, Clarke is "a liar" and "not just a
perjurer but a partisan perjurer." According to Ann Coulter, Clarke is a
racist. Exiting the known world and entering into her own fantasyland,
Coulter depicts Clarke musing about Condoleezza Rice: "the black chick
is a dummy," whom Bush promoted from "cleaning the Old Executive Office
Building at night."

This ad hominem defamation is obviously intended to discredit the man in
order to discredit his argument. But such low tactics aren’t usually
attempted against a man whose allegations are corroborated by others,
including the implicated parties -- and, most palpably, by events
themselves.

Clarke testified that George W. Bush’s national security team
underestimated the terrorist threat prior to 9/11 -- an assertion that
has been vouchsafed by the administration itself. Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage told the 9/11 commission that "even though you're
on the right track, you can get run over if you're not going fast
enough." With the benefit of "hindsight," he continued, it was plain
that "we weren't going fast enough." Even Krauthammer was forced to
concede after the hearings that the Bush "did not distinguish himself on
terrorism in the first eight months of his presidency."

In other words, the Bushies themselves have pled no contest to this
particular Clarke charge. But of course, the boss had long ago offered a
nolo contendere plea. In Bob Woodward’s 2002 book, "Bush at War," the
43rd president confessed that he was not "on point" prior to 9/11.
Indeed, Clarke has taken to reciting Bush’s own words. On Sunday’s "Meet
the Press," Clarke quoted him saying that anti-terror "was not an urgent
issue for me. I didn't feel a sense of urgency."

Still, Vice President Dick Cheney sneered that Clarke "clearly missed a
lot of what was going on."And yet all of us, of course, were witness to
counterterrorism malpractice on a bewildering scale. We all saw
America’s national defenses fail on 9/11. We all saw, too, that Bush
then switched enemies, moving away from al-Qaida to invade a
locked-down, secular Arab police state. We listened to Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz declare Iraq to be the "central front" in the
war on terror. Now we are seeing al-Qaida attacks all over the world --
without any help from the imprisoned Saddam Hussein. Indeed, last week
the Pentagon announced that 2000 Marines will be moved from Iraq to
Afghanistan to nab bin Laden, two years too late -- but maybe just in
time for November.

Meanwhile, inconsistency is another fault being pinned on Clarke.
Richard Lowry, editor of National Review, and Romesh Ratnesar of Time
claim that Clarke has contradicted himself. Articles headlined "Clarke's
Self-Immolation: Auditioning for the Dishonesty Czar" and "Richard
Clarke, at War with Himself" are based on the premises that a) one
always says the same thing in public as in private e-mails; b) one gives
one’s own personal observations in the workplace, especially when
working for the executive branch of the federal government; and c) one
always tells the same anecdote using precisely the same words. If any
American has ever committed any of these three truth-demeanors, please
step forward now.

Others, despairing of nailing Clarke, wish to dismiss the hearings
themselves. Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, fumes that the
9/11 hearings were "poorly timed," adding, "The worst election-year sin
is the focus on past errors, real or purported, and the lust to assign
blame. What’s done is done." Such magnanimous logic, of course, explains
why the Republicans never, never pursued the cases of Whitewater and
Paula Jones in the run-up to the 1994 elections, and never pushed the
Monica Lewinsky allegations in time for the 1998 midterms. Of course:
"What’s done is done." Peters concludes that "the message our bickering
sends to al Qaida and its sympathizers is that Americans are divided and
can be defeated." For openers, that overlooks the context of the 9/11
attacks, when America was relatively united politically, but blissfully
unprepared homeland-security-wise. Peters simply presumes that Bush’s
political well-being matters most now.

As he said on Sunday, Clarke knows he is up against the full might of
the Bush administration and its political allies, some doing their work
on government time, some not. But he has the armor of his own career
achievements. On "Meet the Press," he read aloud to Tim Russert the
handwritten note that Bush gave him as he resigned barely more than a
year ago: "You will be missed. You served our nation with distinction
and honor." Indeed, his secret weapon seems to be his willingness to be
open. Upping the stakes in his White House war, the veteran bureaucrat
now wants his total paper trail declassified and released -- while his
White House antagonists want to leak only unflattering and distorted
snippets.

In a battle between Clarke’s full disclosure and the administration’s
parsed and edited truth, it’s hard to see Clarke losing -- although, of
course, the Rove-Neocon Polemical Complex will pummel him forever.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
James P. Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday and Fellow at the New
America Foundation. He worked on the White House staff of presidents
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Sr.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.564adc3e136436681d14f49c0c6e29a7@108 0581820.nulluser.com...
Jim wrote:

Shooting the messenger
Conservatives should hail former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke,
but instead they're smearing him.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James Pinkerton



March 29, 2004 | Conservatives, ever suspicious of Big Government,
should love a whistle-blower -- unless, of course, he's former
counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. The Washington Times calls Clarke
"a political chameleon who is starved for attention after years of
toiling anonymously in government bureaucracies." For neoconservative
columnist Charles Krauthammer, Clarke is "a liar" and "not just a
perjurer but a partisan perjurer." According to Ann Coulter, Clarke is a
racist. Exiting the known world and entering into her own fantasyland,
Coulter depicts Clarke musing about Condoleezza Rice: "the black chick
is a dummy," whom Bush promoted from "cleaning the Old Executive Office
Building at night."

This ad hominem defamation is obviously intended to discredit the man in
order to discredit his argument. But such low tactics aren't usually
attempted against a man whose allegations are corroborated by others,
including the implicated parties -- and, most palpably, by events
themselves.


Calling Coulter a whore does a disservice to honest whores everywhere.

It has been an astonishing week, watching the Bush-****ters squirm in
every direction to avoid two truths that seem to be more apparent every
day:

* the Bush-****ters were asleep at the wheel regarding al Qaeda prior to
9-11, and,

* the Bush II war against Iraq is a sham.

Considering that the head Bush-****ter, Dubya himself, has nothing in
his record as POTUS to earn election, the "wartime president" model
might have fooled many voters, but I suspect their numbers are
decreasing every day.

What's the biggest fear of the Bush-****ters? That in the next few
months, several more highly placed administration officials will come
out of the closet and tell the truth about Bush and his failures.

You mean *formerly* highly placed officials". None of the officials
criticize Bush until they've been fired or demoted. By then, it's just sour
grapes.

"Jim" wrote in message
...

Shooting the messenger
Conservatives should hail former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke,
but instead they're smearing him.

We're not smearing him. We're just correcting his lies.

Have you seen the "correction of facts" that was issued in several major
papers by Frank Miller today?

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:24:48 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...

Shooting the messenger
Conservatives should hail former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke,
but instead they're smearing him.

We're not smearing him. We're just correcting his lies.

Have you seen the "correction of facts" that was issued in several major
papers by Frank Miller today?

Did you note the poll results showing that people are believing the
administration at a higher rate than Clarke?

The following, from CNN, is also interesting:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite a week of negative headlines about how his
administration handled the threat of terrorism before September 11,
2001, President Bush's political position against Sen. John Kerry has
strengthened, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:24:48 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...

Shooting the messenger
Conservatives should hail former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke,
but instead they're smearing him.

We're not smearing him. We're just correcting his lies.

Have you seen the "correction of facts" that was issued in several major
papers by Frank Miller today?

Did you note the poll results showing that people are believing the
administration at a higher rate than Clarke?

The following, from CNN, is also interesting:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite a week of negative headlines about how his
administration handled the threat of terrorism before September 11,
2001, President Bush's political position against Sen. John Kerry has
strengthened, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.


John H

So, now all of a sudden you take stock in polls?