The Ladies Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

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.