I’ve found almost all of the Bush White House statements to be suspicious and always figured there was some twisting of the truth, but now they’re just lying outright in a desperate attempt to contain the damage.
On Sunday, Richard Clarke started to tell his story of a disengaged administration. When he did we all knew — and he acknowledged — that the dogs would be released on Monday. And they were.
But the attack dogs so far have come up with nothing but lies in my opinion, personal attacks which just raise more questions about the actions of the administration. For example:
Half a dozen top White House officials, departing from their policy of ignoring such criticism, took to the airwaves to denounce Clarke as a disgruntled former colleague and a Democratic partisan.
Of course he’s disgruntled. That’s why he’s telling his story. You made him that way. And it’s funny how he became a Democratic partisan after being a registered Republican, appointed by Ronald Reagan. I guess that a few years in the Bush White House will make even die-hard conservatives rethink their position.
Vice President Cheney, on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, said the counterterrorism coordinator “wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff.” Cheney suggested Clarke did not do enough to prevent three attacks during the Clinton administration and said “he may have a grudge to bear there since he probably wanted a more prominent position.”
… Rice, on Fox News, said: “Dick Clarke was counterterrorism czar for a long time with a lot of attacks on the United States. What he was doing was — what they were doing apparently was not working. We wanted to do something different.”
Well, now this brings up two more questions about the Bush administration’s actions. First, if Clarke didn’t do enough to prevent attacks during the Clinton era, why did the Bush administration keep him on? Second, why in the world would their counterterrorism person not be in the loop? What in the hell is the point of his being there? Perhaps they didn’t include him because they knew he would be a spoil-sport in their plans, but needed to show that they had a counterterrorism expert on staff? How does this statement jibe with the fact that he was appointed “crisis manager” on September 11, making White House decisions on such things as grounding airplanes and diverting Air Force One? Sounds in the loop to me.
Even though many Republicans (and the oddly right-wing Joe Leiberman) are criticizing Clarke for his book, they are also acknowledging that the White House is simply beating up on Clarke rather than addressing his allegations.
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said he believes the White House has to respond directly to Clarke’s allegations rather than question his credibility. “This is a serious book written by a serious professional who’s made serious charges, and the White House must respond to these charges,” he said.
… The campaign’s defense strategy was that although Clarke could not be roundly refuted on the facts, enough doubt about the issue could be raised by portraying him as reckless and partisan.
There’s nothing new there — this White House can’t argue that the allegations are not true, but can launch personal attacks instantly against anyone who criticizes them.
