Monday, March 22, 2004
Still Gonna Run on 9/11, Georgie?

I'm not going to go into great length about the 60 Minutes/Clarke interview myself... there are a ton of great analyses of all that was said (and not said) already floating around the blogosphere.

A few of the choicest ones:

Talking Points Memo

Political Animal

Sadly, No!

And if you're out of range of 60 Minutes and want to check the full interview out for yourself, Sadly, No! has furnished us with a rough-n-ready transcript.

Predictably, the Rove Slime Machine is barrelling ahead with its non-denial denials and insinuations about Clarke's bitterness at having "been fired" (he quit). And the most popular denunciation of Clarke thus far? Obviously, it's Clinton's fault... Clarke was one of Clinton's guys, and so he's patently unreliable.

That, of course, completely overlooks the fact that a) Clinton's counter-terrorism efforts, had they been maintained after Bush took office, might well have prevented the WTC attacks; and b) Clarke also worked in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations from day fucking one. That means that Clarke was dealing with terrorism back when Dubya was still just another failed businessman with a coke habit and a drinking problem.

But while feathers have been ruffled and Cheney has already been dispatched to Rush's studio to make with the spin, nobody seems to be coming up with anything substantial to use against him.

Seeking to turn Mr. Clarke's government experience against him, Mr. Cheney noted that Mr. Clarke was in the government at the time of the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993; when American embassies were attacked in Africa in 1998; and when the warship Cole was attacked in 2000.
source

Dude, it takes some big-ass balls to say that when your boy was reading a story about a pet goat even after he was told about the second tower.

Anyway, while they've responded with much sound and fury, the substance of their rebuttals has basically amounted to "he's one of Clinton's" and "he's wrong." No specific instances of how exactly he's wrong, no hard evidence proffered to back the statement up. Just wrong. Period. How dare you question this administration? And why do you hate America?

The problem for Bush's boy's boys, however, is that even their own telling of the story over time gives a lot more creedence to Clarke's version (as if he needed the additional credibility) than it does to the version that ends with Dubya becoming a national hero. Not so much in that they acknowledge the administration's shortcomings, but in that they just don't manage to jive with each other. They can't even keep their own story straight. (Damn you, WSJ, for not giving me a clear link.)

And then there's that little reality problem.
6:11 PM ::
Amy :: permalink
|