Contrary to Oliver’s histrionics, there is no personal jihad against Richard Clarke. Few but those on the fringe have launched personal salvos against the man, and for the most part, the criticisms have focused mainly on what the man has said, what his past postions on issues have been, and how his statements simply do not add up. This is not a function of an ‘Republican Attack Machine,’ it is an entirely fair examination of the record of a man who has made outrageous, and in my not so humble opinion, demonstrably false and slanderous accusations about the current administration and the President.
For fun, let’s look at what personal attacks might look like. Anyone remember the smear campaign that accompanied George Stephanopoulos’s All Too Human?
He has been criticized by Clinton supporters as disloyal and a traitor for writing a book that often paints a less than flattering portrait of the president. Mr. Stephanopoulos bristles at the criticism.
Just the facts, right? There was nothing to the jihad against George, was there? Do a google search yourself about George and see what turns up.
On the other hand, what has been examined about Richard Clarke is not about his character, but what he has done. As far as I can tell, the three most widely distributed quotes from Clarke’s book or about Clarke’s book are the following:
1.) The assertion that Bush somehow pressured him to blame Iraq for the 9/11 attacks and somehow was pressured to fabricate information. I think that claim has been decimated by yours truly below.
2.) This one is a gem:
As I briefed Rice on Al Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, “Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden’s group, but it’s much more than that. It’s a network of affiliated terrorist organizations with cells in over 50 countries, including the U.S.”
And then, of course, the audio tapes of Condi Rice coherently and intelligently discussing Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden a year before ever meeting Clarke surface. Oops.
3.) In testimony before the commission yesterday, Paul Wolfowitz stated:
But with respect to the quote that the reporter presented as having been put in my mouth, which was an objection to Mr. Clark suggesting that ignoring the rhetoric of Al Qaida would be like ignoring Hitler’s rhetoric in Mein Kampf, I can’t recall ever saying anything remotely like that. I don’t believe I could have. In fact, I frequently have said something more nearly the opposite of what Clark attributes to me. I’ve often used that precise analogy of Hitler and Mein Kampf as a reason why we should take threatening rhetoric seriously, particularly in the case of terrorism and Saddam Hussein. So I am generally critical of the tendency to dismiss threats as simply rhetoric. And I know that the quote Clark attributed to me does not represent my views then or now. And that meeting was a long meeting about seven different subjects, all of them basically related to Al Qaida and Afghanistan.
By the way, I know of at least one other instance of Mr. Clark’s creative memory. Shortly after September 11th, as part of his assertion that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he wrote in a memo that, and I am quoting here, When the bombing happened, he focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait the same month, unquote.
Four statements by Clarke, varying from a snide dismissal of the capabilities of Condi Rice to an outright Lie on Clarke’s part to an overstatement of his own intuition in 1993 to a mischaracterization of Paul Wolfowitz’s statements.
And that is before anyone even has a chance to read the book and google it and fact-check his ass. Mind you- there have been no personal attacks, no ad hominems, nothing of the sort. Instead, an examination of his statements and his record, which is completely legitimate, no matter how much Oliver whines.
And let’s get to some of the other questions. Tell me why these lines of inquiry are unfair?
– Is it unfair to note that he may be disgruntled because he was turned down for a position?
– Is it unfair to note that the company that owns CBS also stands to profit from the book, and thus could explain the softball interview on 60 Minutes?
– Is it unfair to note that before Clarke was demoted, he was the terrorism czar while Al Qaeda attacked the United States numerous times and grew into the behometh we are currently dealing with?
– Is it unfair to note that depending on the month, Clarke asserted that the greatest threats to the nation were cyber-terrorism, or narcotic trafficking, or whatever the cause of the day might have been?
– Is it unfair to note that he may not have had the same level of information and access in the Bush administration that he did during the Clinton years, and thus might be characterized as ‘out of the loop?”
– Is it unfair to ask him what he actually did accomplish, and what specific suggestions he may have had that were ignored that turned out to be true?
– Is it unfair to question his politics and his relationship with Kerry’s advisor?
– Is it unfair to question why he stayed on for several years after 9/11 if he was so appalled at this administration?
– Is it unfair to ask why none of these criticisms were leveled before the heart of the election cycle?
Someone please explain this to me, because I am at a loss. I don’t think any of this is out of bounds- and if ithere are legitimate answers to those questions, why wouldn’t they be fair questions. Honest answers that make sense would seem to STRENGTHEN Clarke’s assertions.
But then again, that is just me.
Chris
Another Clarke contradiction comes from a New Yorker article last September:
“Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan.”
The link:
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact
Doesn’t Clarke now claim that Bush ignored al Qaeda to focus on Iraq?
shark
Not to mention kissing Bush’s ass in his resignation letter…
Can our media be bothered to do ANY research? Must we depend on “bloggers with google” to do their work for them?
capt joe
or this one via instapundit
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
” January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent. . . .
The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. . .
JIM ANGLE: You’re saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that’s correct.”
So did he lie then or now?
Oliver Willis has been standing way too long next to his own krytonite.
Oliver thinks that Powell and Rice should be just like them and that they are sellouts. For Oliver, this is a personal jihad against conservative balck republicans.
disgusting!
Chris
At this rate, we’re gonna need a notebook to keep track of Clarke’s flip-flops.
Hey, maybe this guy has been unleashed to make Kerry look like a straight talker.
capt joe
Well Clarke’s best friend is Kerry’s homeland security guy.
HH
There’s more where this came from, I hear…
V.W.Z.
Richard Clarke also stated that even after 9-11 Condy Rice didn’t know the name of Al Qaeda. Fox News is the only media outlet that not only challenged that statement of clarkes’ but played an audio of Ms Rice talking about Al Qaeda in October of 2000 (almost a year before 9-11). I’m surprised Clarke’s nose isn’t a foot long.
Kimmitt
Actually, he said that he interpreted her expression as one who was unfamiliar with the term, which was a valid statement. If he was wrong, hey — the man’s only human.
V.W.Z.
It would seem the man (Clarke) is only too human. Being the terrorism czar and not realizing that Condy Rice made ‘several’ statements about Al Qaeda before his erroneous ‘facial readings’ shows how far this man will go to protect his incompetant butt.
Kimmitt
It’s not like Dr. Rice nodded thoughtfully and said, “You know, I think Al Qaeda may just be the greatest threat the US currently faces.”