That was the title of a very long post I'd just finished on the extremely soft Richard Clarke "interview" (more like bottle feeding) on Meet the Press this morning. The page crashed just as I was getting ready to publish it and, frankly, I don't have the stomach to recreate it, but here are the bare bones, with some new stuff and some quotes thrown in.
Clarke is trying to paint himself as the innocent victim of an unprovoked and highly orchestrated White House attack. He is, after all, only "raising a policy issue." Right.
Here's the full transcript. It's a display of arrogance, innuendo, pandering, misdirection and disingenuousness to beat the band.
And you know, Tim, what I would like to do, beginning today, it's been going on for a week now. What I would like to do beginning today, is let's raise the level of discourse. Let's get some civility back into this issue. And let's talk about the issues. Let's not talk about the personalities. I have great respect for Dr. Rice. People have been saying all week that, you know, I must have a grudge against Condi Rice. I have known Condi for a long time. I think she's a very, very good person. And I don't want this to be about personality. I want it to be about the issues, about the war in Iraq and its affect on the war on terror.
He wants to get "civility" back into this issue? While at the same time trying to lay the blame for 9-11 at the feet of the President? Because in this interview, Clarke clearly implies (contrary to his sworn testimony) that 9-11 would have been avoided if the President had just listened to him. Just as Bill Clinton prevented terrible terrorist attacks against this country in December 1999 -- by listening to him.
And then there's this analysis, his main point, it seems, of how the war in Iraq hurt the "war on terrorism:"
Who are we fighting in the war on terrorism? We're fighting Islamic radicals and they are drawing people from the youth of the Islamic world into hating us. Now, after September 11, people in the Islamic world said, "Wait a minute. Maybe we've gone too far here. Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement, has to be suppressed," and we had a moment, we had a window of opportunity, where we could change the ideology in the Islamic world. Instead, we've inflamed the ideology. We've played right into the hands of al-Qaeda and others. We've done what Osama bin Laden said we would do.
In what universe were "people in the Islamic world" saying maybe they had gone too far after 9-11? When, exactly, was this "window of opportunity?" Go to MEMRI or Arab News or Al-Ahram and read what was being said in the Arab Press after 9-11. There was sympathy, there was gloating, there were denials, there were accusations against everyone from President Bush to the Mossad, but there was no "wait a minute." There was no "maybe we've gone too far." Clarke's just making that up.
I'm no loyal fan of W. And I have no problem with responsible criticism of his handling of the so-called war on terror if it's based on solid and reliable investigation and evidence. But Clarke is just grinding an axe here. I hope he goes down. I hope he goes down in flames and takes his handlers with him. And I'm just so sorry if that doesn't "raise the level of discourse."
