Posted on 03/29/2004 8:10:11 AM PST by Reagan Man
Democrats have come to expect that Republicans will "wimp out" in directly confronting lies and obfuscations.
Richard Clarke, nominal Republican but Democrat financial contributor over the years, likely expected the Bush Administration would follow that same course, since he had the backing of congressional Democrats and the media giant Viacom.
He probably expected the mainstream media to echo the Leslie Stahl puffery from CBS's 60 Minutes, without any bothersome questions or investigations of his claims. Even the MSN homepage had a link to "Best Parts of Richard Clarke's Book" the other day, with apparently no concern at all about confirming.
Clarke is being hawked by Democrats as a Republican, a four administration diplomat, and a whistleblower suffering attempted character assassination for exposing the truth.
But all this is just another set of lies Democrats are counting on Republicans not to confront.
Democrats were able to prevail in the "It's just about sex!" defense of the impeached Clinton's perjury - though perjury is a crime. When Republicans failed in their responsibility to find Clinton guilty, despite the lie under oath repeating on tape over and over, they set a benchmark.
Assault the truth in a bold, daring, caustic and unrelenting way - and Republicans will back down. The mainstream media, rarely reticent to publicize a negative about conservatives, has gone along with it many times since.
Their strategy was evident in Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Democrats Tom Daschle, Robert Leahy, and Chuck Schumer use it in the blatantly unconstitutional filibustering of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees still today. And Democrat apologist Ellen Ratner uses it to refute Clarke's earlier unabashed praise for Bush's handling of 9-11, both in recorded tapes and in written letters.
Ratner dismisses the erstwhile praise (pre-book release of course) as Washington spin. Ratner has Clarke simply pitching obligated lying then, but swears he is this time telling the truth - now that millions of dollars, a spot in a Kerry presidency to salve his ego, and possible damage to George Bush are at stake.
She tries again with the "slippery slope of declassifying" when the issue of the White House releasing several hours of the tapes of Clarke praising Bush effusively and deriding Clinton for inaction comes up. Ratner must not know that "things" are declassified when there simply is no longer a need for them to be classified.
Truth always exposes duplicity, as in a simple question to Clarke.
Why, if Clarke saw George Bush and Condoleeza Rice putting the American people at risk by their ineptitude, did he not call an immediate press conference and announce their inadequacies to the world?
But even more damning is his profit motive, and the fawning apology.
Clarke took several months to write a draft, edit the draft, submit the draft, reedit the draft, finalize the galleys, talk with the publisher about release dates, and talk with the publisher about moving up the release date - all to coincide with his public testimony at the 9-11 Commission and a dramatic opening for his dreamed-of blockbuster.
Obvious, too, is that he took time to get poor coaching about how to deliver the "apology" on behalf of the Administration. (Isn't that, by the way, an act akin to making a treaty with a foreign nation on your own - purporting to speak for the government?)
But here is where the user is used. By also blaming himself, no doubt as he was coached, he puts himself squarely in the hot-seat. Hoping to appear magnanimous, he simply appears ... witless.
After all, if Bush and Rice were too inept to prevent 9-11, though Clarke tried mightily to get them to see the error of their ways, wouldn't it follow that ... Clarke himself ... would be the one to blame for 9-11?
Clarke seems not so abjectly sorry as to be unable to promote the book, nor so abjectly sorry as to decline to take money for the book. Apparently in Clarke's mind, his apology is payment in full to the victims' families.
He is just another venal, narcissistic personality, being used by Democrats - who hope that Republicans will be too disorganized to confront the lies.
Not this time.
In this war on terror, America's very survival depends on confronting Democrat lies. Richard Clarke's are just the most current in a very long line.
Clarke and the Democrats want his previous testimony declassified and Condi Rice to testify publicly. Why? To give this story a few more news cycles. Republicans should declare victory and move on.
He is just another venal, narcissistic personality, being used by Democrats - who hope that Republicans will be too disorganized to confront the lies.
Not this time.
Don't count on it. The Pubbies will do what they always do: Wimp out.
Dick Clarke apologizing for the 9/11 deaths is like Clinton apologizing for the international community not intervening to stop the Rwanda genocide (when he himself was the most culpable figure).
In other words, where influencing the swing voters is concerned, the truth doesn't matter. Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid" proved all that matters is what sort of feelings you can leave in their guts.
To defeat the moron vote, Dubya needs to energize his base. If he loses in November, it'll be because too many disgruntled and/or unmotivated conservatives stayed home.
Well you can hardly blame them given recent history.
Any number of newspapers would have interviewed him and written everything he had to tell them. He could have covered every item in detail and had it accurately reported.
Why?
You don't get paid for reports.
You get paid for books....especially sensational books.
Clarke is a self-serving, grand-standing opportunist looking to cash in on his government experience via a book and other contracts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.