I was watching Softball with Chris Matthews last night, and at one point I was so nauseated by his behavior while interviewing Richard Clarke that I actually yelled “Why don’t you just tongue kiss him, Matthews?” here is a segment of the interview that was typical Matthews:
MR. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the people in the White House. Condi Rice. Should she be national security advisor to the president or is she over her head?
MR. CLARKE: Oh, no, she is not over her head at all. She has a very, very good understanding of what the president wants, what the president needs. And the best thing as national security advisor, aside from expertise
HH
Clarke also dissembled, claiming that Rice knew all about what he was talking about when he said “bin Laden…” of course his book describes her immediate reaction as being skeptical. Interesting that only now that it’s been shown that she had a lot of knowledge about the al Qaeda network and terror does he “clarify.”
CadillaqJaq
What about Clarke’s “departure,” as MSNBC called it, from essentially the same question Slade Gorton asked last week that received a simple and concise “No” from Clarke while under oath?
Last night he reversed himself yet again, and the anti-Bush Dem loyalists today are parsing the English language like you can’t believe to explain his turnabout.
They surely are amusing to watch.
M. Scott Eiland
“ButThat may be true, but it also could be patronizing on your part.”
What, Mr. “I looked into her eyes and knew she’d never heard of Al-Queda, so I explained it to her in baby talk” Clarke being patronizing? Couldn’t be.
HH
But… but… in his testimony last week he was just spinning for Bush. True Washington insiders know about this.
Also in his book, he was spinning for Bush. Now that he is in front of Matthews he can finally tell the truth.
Also now that he’s accused MoveOn.org of distorting his message by quoting him… you see, now he’s spinning for Bush. Their quotes were the truth, because then he was free to tell the truth.