How do you discredit a former Administration insider who blasts the Administration after their departure? In the case of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill , it’s really quite easy to portray him as unable to reach those juicy grapes himself, leaving it to the public to imagine that’s why he considers them sour.
But Clarke’s a bit taller than O’Neill in the public’s eye, because not only had he worked under four Presidents (three of them Republicans), but he continued to work for the Bush II White House for two years even after he was demoted from White House terrorism czar to merely the cyberterrorism poobah (or whatever). Clearly the demotion didn’t offend him so much that he marched right out.
On the Today Show this morning, Rice responded somewhat emotionally (for her) to a question about Clarke’s comments by rattling off a list of failures that took place under Clarke’s tenure as Czar…I’ve heard she did better on other programs, but she was clearly a bit shaken on the NBC interview. She did have the ring of credibility in her defense, but she also had the slight wimper of the wounded. If the goal this morning was to portray her as “human” the Administration succeeded. If it was to portray her as immune to Clarke’s charges, they weren’t quite as successful.
The Administration must dismiss his charges, obviously. To do otherwise would be disastrous. I’ve noticed, however, that Rice backed off insisting the disputed conversation with President Bush never happened. This might have had something to do with 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl’s generous warning to Stephen Hadley that they had corroboration from someone who witnessed the meeting.
Bush said early on he welcomed the opportunity to discuss how his administration has handled the war on terror. As the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for…
Its time to label Rice for the incompetent fraud that she is — no matter how she might glow on camera.
Her Foreign Affairs article, written for the Jan/Feb 2000 issue, and summarized by Yglesias here, lists the important objectives of the Bush administration, and somehow neglects to mention Al Queda or non-state terrorism as a priority.
Clarke isn’t the one who has exposed her — its her own article that proves Clarke’s point.
“ring of credibility in her voice”? I think we watched different broadcasts or you need a hearing aid.
So you thought she was not credible, CJ?
It’s my personal judgement that she was someone who believed she had been doing a good job. That’s all I’m saying.
So now the Administration (via Condi) this morning on GMA asked “If Clarke is that concerned why did he wait until now?”. Well, how about– he didn’t! He is quoted in Al Franken’s book and cooperated with PBS Frontline ages ago. How do you pronounce it, Condi-Lie-za or Condi-sleaza? And however you pronounce it, stop stalling about testifying in front of the 9/11 Commision!
Rice was arguably more experienced and better qualified for her job than were a number of other National Security Advisors upon accepting the job. She has grown in the job. While I can think of people I’d rather see in that job, the same has been true for most of her predecessors.
I think the fact that Terrorism was placed further down the priority list was not her fault, nor, in a sense, even Bushes fault — it was done due to the cold war mentality of Cheny, Wolfotwits et. al. — that’s no excuse but it is a reason. They probably are more responsible for more screw ups in this administration than everyone else combined.
We can say they shouldn’t be there and I agree. I believe they were the price from the big donors to back Bush; much as Al Gore, Warren Christopher, Les Aspin et.al. were the price for the support of Clinton. Politics, as they say, is politics.
My perception is that Clarke — who is widely known as a terrier with a single agenda and an abrasive guy, pushed his probably correct but, to his superiors, annoying view and was marginalized because of it. That, if true, is regrettable — more than — but it is an indication of nothing more than human frailty and misjudgement; something we’re all guilty of from time to time.
The fact that our frailties and misjudgements don’t have national consequences is good, the fact that, if I’m correct, the WH erred, is bad but no one is infallible. To expect infallibility is dream world stuff…
I suspect Clark was marginalized, resented it strongly, wrote a book in his off-duty time, then announced his retirement and book almost simultaneously. Payback is hell.
To expect infallibility is dream world stuff…
I’d settle for accountability.
Speaking of O’Neill
O’Neill papers should have been classified
Rice was arguably more experienced and better qualified for her job than were a number of other National Security Advisors upon accepting the job.
That’s a woeful assessment, given her confession that she didn’t read the footnotes in the 2002 NIE. Failure to discharge one of the most basic and fundamental duties of your job should be a firing offense, period.
Or, to concur with Edward: I too would settle for accountability.
Rice. Ha.
Number of times the word terrorism is mentioned in Condoleezza Rice’s 6,601-word Foreign Affairs article (“Life After the Cold War”) from January/February of 2000: 3.
Number of times terrorism is linked with state sponsorship: 2.5.
Number of times Al Qaeda is mentioned: 0.
Number of times Afghanistan is mentioned: 0.
Number of times the Taliban is mentioned: 0.
Number of times Russia is mentioned: 35.
Number of times China is mentioned: 24.
Sounds like it should have been called “Stuck on the Cold War.”
Ken White
It almost sounds as though you are allowing that Clarke’s abrasive personality and single minded focus on terrorism caused him to be marginalized.
Remember the guy was in government for 30 years and served under 4 presidential administrations of two different political persuasions. Also remember, his single minded focus may be due to his job as the government’s leader of anti-terrorism.
The stories of his abrasiveness are probably being high lighted to dismiss him – are you taking the bait?. You don’t get thar from heer for thirty years if your abrasiveness marginalizes you.
nice list praktike…can you pass along the cite?
Er, Ken, I’d punt on the Condi defense.
Meanwhile, Cheney went on with Rush today in order to do what he does best: deliver blatant falsehood with just a soupcon of condescension.
In this case, he attempted to marginalize Clarke by pointing out he was moved to the cyber-terrorism beat, and was therefore out of the loop. The rest of the interview rested on that assumption. Except that Clarke didn’t make the move until after 9/11. He was not only in the loop, he ran the loop. Cheney knows this. (Unless he was out sick that year.) But hey, what’s another lie among friends?
And just in case any one wanted to blame 9/11 on the Bush administration (personally, I believe Clarke but have heard no evidence the administration could have actually stopped everything that happened that day), Cheney also had this to say:
“So the only thing I can say about Dick Clarke is he was here throughout those eight years going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center in ’98 when the embassies were hit in east Africa, in 2000 when the USS Cole was hit, and the question that ought to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when they — when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?”
In other words he essentially blamed all terrorist successes on Clarke. Amazing.
By the way O’Neil is reponsable for the bad economy too.
I actually know how to spell “responsible”. see above.
I actually know how to spell “resposible”. see above.
I actually know how to spell “resposible”. see above.
I, too, can spell it. But I can’t seem to find it in the dictionary.