Richard Clarke has become the latest media darling when it comes to bashing Bush. Led by a pseudo-journalist, Leslie Stahl, men like Clarke and Paul O'Neill have been given an important stage to smear the President and his administration without so much as encountering tough, penetrating, cross-examination style questioning. Instead, Clarke and O'Neill are given saintly status as they are allowed to make one scurrilous charge after another.
Clarke's "apology," last week, to the families of 9/11 victims was the epitome of grandstanding arrogance. The only people to blame for the murder of 3,000 American civilians are Osama bin Laden and his gang, Al-Qaeda. Clarke has made a name for himself in the last week in order to gain enough notoriety to sell a book. Very few people had heard of Richard Clarke, until last week. He has suceeded in his aim to create a firestorm of controversy and gin up interest in a book that is more tame than his fiery assertions.
Romesh Ratnesar wrote an excellent piece in Time Magazine about the conflicting details, embellishments and contradictions between what Clarke wrote in his book and what he's now feeding to indulgent television reporters. It seems that Clarke has become drunk with the power he has desperately craved for years and he's trying to milk up as much as the 15 minutes of fame he feels entitled to.
It is funny how the media loves these so-called Bush Administration "kiss and tell" books when they shunned anything that might have proved embarrassing to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Ann Coulter makes a great point how Gary Aldrich's book, Unlimited Access was ignored by the mainstream press due to strong arm-twisting by such future impartial journalists like George Stephanopoulos.
The Bush Administration has nothing to worry about when it comes to Richard Clarke. Thanks to articles like the one in Time Magazine, and Clarke's own confusing and conflicting assertions, the American people will tire of these shameless attacks and reject Richard Clarke as a grandstanding malcontent with an axe to grind.
Article comments
1 - Mark Saleski
yea, yea...liberal media.
we've heard it before.
2 - Mark Saleski
oh...and you forgot the words "pseudo-journalist" in front of the words "Ann Coulter"
3 - Eric Olsen
Thomas, thanks and welcome! I can't tell if these continued "1000 cuts" against Bush will continue to chip away at the public's trust of him, or will backfire and lead to increased support. So far a lot of people are reserving judgment.
4 - Jim Carruthers
I imagine after Clarke, the administration will target John O’Neill since he also didn't fit their agenda. In all of this spin, why doesn't anybody address Clarke's allegations, it's just one big spin campaign (if they do the spin, they don't actually have to do the job). If Clarke's facts are false, why isn't that being addressed?
5 - Voxxy
Jim, you aren't paying attention. Clarke is the same person who said Clinton left no antiterrorism plan, that the Bush administration had an open mind about who was responsible for 9/11, that Bush had done a great job against terrorism, that Al Qaeda was tied to Iraq, that Bush decided after 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda and not Iraq...just the opposite of what he says now. These statements were in press briefings, interviews with the Washington Post, on PBS' Nightline, etc. The fact you don't hear them now is because of yes, the liberal media.
When you next hear about Mr. Clarke, he will be on trial for lying under oath, since he is either lying now before the commission and in his book or in his earlier testimony before Congress.
6 - Jim Carruthers
So why hasn't Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney appeared and given public testimony? It seems to me that spin is just going up another button. Again, instead of opinion, why aren't facts being addressed. What was done, not what was said. (because after all, I can say you are a poopy-head, but that doesn't make it so, unless of course, you actually have a head made of shit).
Now go on, smear John O'Neill, because he quit the Shrub administration and said they stridently ignored his warnings of threats and politicized intel to suit their agenda.
7 - mike
I think the White House is telling the truth. For example, Dick Cheney is telling the truth when he says that Clarke was out of the loop. Condi Rice is telling the truth when she says that he was in the loop. The ones who said he had no counterterrorism plan are telling the truth. The ones who said he did have one but it wasn't any good are telling the truth. The ones who said Bush never told him to blame Saddam are telling the truth. The ones who said Bush did tell him, but said it nicely, are telling the truth. If it wasn't all true, why would they say it? I believe them.
8 - Steve Rhodes
You should really watch The Man Who Knew which is on John O'Neil (who is mentioned above). All of it is online.
At the very least read the interview with Clarke about O'Neil.
Whether Clarke has the right to say he is sorry, at least he made the effort. And a lot of the families of people who died on 9/11 seem to appreciate it.
It seems that Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney should be brought up for lying long before Clarke. Though all except for Bush (and perhaps Cheney) can argue they were just protecting their boss.
Does anyone really expect Clarke to really have said the things he wrote in his book when testifying before congress or in a background briefing while still working for Bush?
9 - Jim Carruthers
"I'm from the White House. I do terrorism. I need some help."
And for you 'murricans who may wonder (all 4 of you) how the rest of the world sees the States, that line pretty much sums it up. >(And yes, you buncha-munchs it is totally out of context).
10 - Jimmy Havok
Change your pants, Galvin, you've peed yourself...again.
Suddenly, after a long career under four Presidents, Clarke is "craving power?" Boy, you are desperate.
11 - Lindsay Cruz
Rice and Bush lied whey said they had no idea terrorists would not try flying planes into a building, AUGUST 2001 - PRESIDENT PERSONALLY WARNED OF AL QAEDA AIRPLANE PLOT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally “received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."
WHITE HOUSE BEGAN EFFORT TO CUT COUNTER-TERRORISM PROGRAMS: The New York Times reported that in its final 2003 budget request, the Administration "called for spending increases in 68 programs, none of which directly involved counterterrorism...In his Sept. 10 submission to the budget office, Ashcroft did not endorse FBI requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. Ashcroft proposed a $65 million cut for a program that gives states and localities counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training." By comparison, "Under Janet Reno, the department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6% in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1% in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001."
WHILE CUTTING COUNTER-TERROR, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT FUNDING TO THE TALIBAN: At the same time the White House was trying to cut counter-terrorism funding, it gave "$43 million in drought aid to Afghanistan after the Taliban began a campaign against poppy growers." As the 5/29/01 edition of Newsday noted, the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan "are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift of $43 million from the Bush Administration. This is the same government against which the United Nation imposes sanctions, at the behest of the United States, for refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden."