It is quite a message and believe me I am chilled over all this.

So... accusing a man of commiting perjury when in fact you have no idea whether he has or not (and he most likely has not) is politics purer than the driven snow? Implicating he's lying about a meeting when in fact he is telling the truth and has witnesses isn't slimy, at all? Frist's senate speech was the RSM (Republican Slime Machine) in full throttle. Clarke has contradicted himself, but to absolve the administration of playing dirty at all? Give me a break. You mightn't like to admit it but the current Republican leadership have some of the nastiest political operatives around and saying they'll stop at almost nothing is an understatement with a cavaet: they'll stop at nothing if it doesn't backfire. Out a covert agent working on the security of our contry? Yeah, we'll can do that. Ooops. Payback's a bitch isn't it (it will be)?

There is no "Republican Attack Machine," no moreso than the "Democratic Attack Machine" anyway, which, to the extent that it exists, is every bit as powerful and organized (or disorganized) as the Republican version.

When Senator Frist (not the President) and people like myself called Clarke a perjurer, we may have been over the top. We were, after all, livid at yet another smear attempt at an administration at war. This doesn't make us part of any "attack machine."

The bit about "outing an agent" continues to look, to some of us, like a bit of slimy spin from the "Democratic Attack Machine." The so-called "Plame affair" has looked from day one like an effort by partisan hacks to attack the administration.

Whatever. I was angry with Clarke, and still am. Calling him a perjurer is probably a bit much. But the administration's defense of itself has been excellent, and justified, so far as I can see.

Indeed, I will go further than this.

In watching the crap about the "Halliburton scandal," the supposed "incompetence" at not "protecting the museum in Baghdad," the "blood for oil" crap, the accusations of "lies" over WMDs, and a myriad other things that have come out of the left's well-oiled "attack machine" over the last three years, I'd have to say that on the whole, the Republican "attack machine" has been surprisingly weak and defensive--and that all this is a huge part of why I'm so upset these days with Democrats.

One Senator uttering the word "perjury" can't hold a candle to the below-the-belt viciousness and switch-blade wielding aggression of the left in the last three years. It's been disgusting. We're at war and this is how people behave?

I'll retract the word "perjury" as apparently Frist has. But let's get a grip, eh?

My favorite anti-Clarke moment was when Bob Novak, himself the center of the "Plame affair," said on CNN Crossfire, "Congressman, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?"

No wait, there was the time when Wolf Blitzer, also on CNN, told viewers that unnamed administration officials were saying that Clarke “wants to make a few bucks, and that in his own personal life, they’re also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well.”

No wait - calling him a perjurer on this very site, with absolutely no evidence, and then saying the charge may be "probably a bit much."

Substantive, above-board criticisms all.

And Dean, trotting out the old "they did it too so what's so bad about us doing it" excuse? And calling Halliburton a scandal is "below the belt viciousness"? Come on, you can do better than that.

Actually, evidence that he perjured himself was given. Turns out to be weak, and a retraction was issued.

You ever said anything in the heat of anger that you wish you hadn't, Adam?

I'm not using "they did it too" is not an excuse Adam. I've issued the retraction, as has Frist.

Now: where's the retractions over the phoney-baloney Halliburton bullshit, which is and never has been anything remotely resembling a scandal? Where is the retraction for accusing the administration of "intentionally outing a secret agent in retaliation," another vicious and unsubstantiated charge? Where is the apology for the repeated vicious smears about "lies" on the WMD issue? Where are the apologies from those who gave, and continue to give, Clarke instant credibility and to snort derisively at every single attempt by the administration to defend itself?

"This man looks to have committed perjury/Whoops, okay, that looks over the top, but he's still full of crap" is hardly the stuff of "attack machine" politics, but whatever. You got a retraction. You got anything more to say?

Slimy? No. Saying your opponent dates a goat and likes to set cats on fire is a slimy attack. Saying your opponent hangs around schoolyards in a trenchcoat passing out cotton candy -- slime.

Wolf Blitzer has passed along information from unnamed administration officials suggesting that there are "some weird aspects in [Clarke's] life." Goats? Cats? Trenchcoats? Cotton candy?

Gay?

They report, you decide.

Tell me which "unnamed officials" and show me what else comes out of that, and whether it's true, and I'll be impressed. Otherwise, I can't consider it to be even in the same league as the slime that Clarke himself is peddling--and that folks like you are taking such joyful delight in helping to spread, Ara.

I was angry. I admit it. I know others were. The slime-spewing at the administration has reached such a crescendo it's very difficult for me to get angry when I hear that a few of the President'sdefenders got angry and shot their mouths off.

There is no "Republican Attack Machine

Well, its not like I've got a vision of a sinister metallic edifice hidden in some disclosed location. They're just very good at handling (cowing) the media - they broke one of the cardinal rules by having backgrounder Clarke gave leaked and there's been no outcry. So thats another examlpe after mine and adams. There's more. We're focusing here on how they've dealt with Clarke and all you can do is cast around wildly for various 'unfair' Democratic lines of attack in the past three years which don't even originate from the theoretical Democratic Attack Machine (blood for oil, baghdad museum), legimate complaints (Baghdad museum should be protected, though damage not as bad as feared initially blah blah blah). And which administration in history hasn't been attacked for shading the truth and incompetance.

As for Frist's speech, there was no element of intemperance there. There was not 'evidence' presented. He said he didn't know whether Clarke perjured himself or not on the Friday and in a prepared speech in the Senate accused him of perjury. Pretty stupid way to smear someone but it was a calculated smear all the same.

Where is the retraction for accusing the administration of "intentionally outing a secret agent in retaliation,"

When asking a series of rhetorical questions of questionable premises it is advisable not to the begin with the most ridiculous. Where's the retraction? The investigation is still going on! And juicy, juicy new tidbits are presenting themselves every day!

[Patrick] Fitzgerald is said by lawyers involved in the case and government officials to be examining possible discrepancies between documents he has gathered and statements made by current or former White House officials during a three-month preliminary investigation last fall by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. Some officials spoke to F.B.I. agents with their lawyers present; others met informally with agents in their offices and even at bars near the White House

....The suspicion that someone may have lied to investigators is based on contradictions between statements by various witnesses in F.B.I. interviews, the lawyers and officials said. The conflicts are said to be buttressed by documents, including memos, e-mail messages and phone records turned over by the White House.

Dean, the article says the Whitehouse hasn't played dirty and that allegations that they have are preemptive strikes to ward of criticism. We're saying no, they are playing dirty, eg. X Y Z - your response so far is to say 'well dems do it too and they're even meaner!' which aside from being untrue is a dishonest way to deflect criticism of the theory you advocated.

Tell me which "unnamed officials" and show me what else comes out of that, and whether it's true, and I'll be impressed.

Well he can't cause they're unnamed. Duh. Unless you think Blitzer is lying. And nice bit of goalpost moving - a smear has to work before its worthy of condemnation! Here's Krugman (yes, gasp) giving the run down. Luskin doesn't seem to have any complaints so there's probably no egregrios factual errors.

Just to give one example, there's no retraction necessary for Plame. It happened. The only reason we don't know who ratted her out is the administration won't investigate itself, and Novak and others won't reveal who leaked it. The fact that it happened at all is proven by Novak's original column. Funny too how it's Novak who is now accusing Clarke of racism, on absolutely *no* basis.

Also, the fact that Blitzer wouldn't say who was talking about Clarke's personal life is sort of the point. You can't refute a shadow charge made by unnamed sources. Good job, Wolf.

Clarke is about the least "full of crap" official in the Bush White House. Which is what makes his attacks so damaging. It's funny that the President himself basically backed up Clarke's main pre-9/11 charge, by telling Bob Woodward that bin Laden and al Quaeda were not a priority for him before the attacks. Why are these people so unwilling to admit they ever, at any time, did anything wrong?

I don't think any of this is going to make a difference anyway. People have made up their minds about this administration and that's the end of it. But it's nice to see the press wake up occasionally and force them to explain themselves.

Seriously, if you think this administration plays by the book you're woefully underinformed.

Max M: They seem to be playing by the same book the Democrats use, although not nearly as effectively.

(Max, in a Frankenstien's Monster voice): "Democrats goooood; Republicans baaaaaad."

And this is what passes for reasoned discourse? Feh.

Dean has (as usual) nailed it: both sides go over the top occasionally, but the Dems have more frequenlty the past few years. Also, no one has ever stood up and said "you know, all the stuff about Halliburton, or Enron, or Bush starting the war to distract voters from the economy? our bad!"

That's my gripe about most of the Donks as opposed to most of the GOPs these days; the Donks see themselves as the sole repository of truth & justice in America, and discount any and all Bush defenders as "apologists," or "partisan hacks."

Oh, there's some partisan feeling on both sides, that comes naturally. But there's a difference between rooting for a particular side, and insisting that the other side is always and completely wrong.

Nearly every anti-Bush post I've seen here and elsewhere is 100% negative. It is very rare to see someone criticize Bush, but acknowlege anything positive about the administration. Those that do are almost invariable dismissed as the Dem version of RINOs. Hmm, that's what the Dems need, a nifty acronym; DINOs, perhaps? :)

No, really: go to (say) NRO, and check out the articles. Once you get past the annoyances (such as how they discuss every Bush speech as oratorical art, or their luddite opposition to cell-cloning research), you'll find a fair number of posts criticizing the current administration.

You won't find much of that on the other side; apparently Kerry gets a free pass as "notBush." They don't care about anything but "notBush," which speaks volumes about their priorities.

Max, two points: Krugman is one of the most laughable, biased operators around. He, like Fisk, has become legendary for bullshit. While his name hasn't become a verb yet, he has inspired the Krugman Truth Squad.

'Nuff said.

As for Clarke; I'm not going to witch-hunt the man (actually, I think there's been way too much furor over this by both sides) but he has directly contradicted himself at least once, in a major way.

While sworn in, he testified that there was nothing we could have done (e.g. bombing/invading Afghanistan, etc. to prevent 9/11, since AQ had put their plans into motion months before.

Later (on 60 Minutes IIRC) he said that 9/11 was preventable.

Things that make you go "hmmmm."

But that's ok, the usual suspects will spin things out so it comes out "Bush baaaddd, Democrats goooooood."

If you think Dean is "partisan," go check out the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. He makes Dean look like a Kerry supporter. Over there it's GOPs (Phants?)==Truth, Justice, American Way, and the Donks==Lying, Traitorous, Amerikka Haters. Just in case you have trouble telling the difference between those who hold both sides up to the same standard, and those who don't...

Casey: Can you get me that "60 Minutes" transcript that shows Clarke said 9/11 was preventable? Thanks. My memory is a little different - he said the Bush White House didn't consider terrorism to be enough of a priority from his perspective. He said he gave them a plan in January that they didn't consider until September, right before the attacks. He said Bush appointed Cheney to an anti-terror task force that never met.

As Clarke has said over and over, this shouldn't be about him. (But as a veteran of several administrations, both Rep and Dem, he has a tremendous amount of experience and credibility.) It should be about discussing the administration's conduct, both before and after 9/11. And when you've got Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al (not to mention Novak, Blitzer, Hume and the rest) rushing to trash Clarke, that question doesn't get a lot of play, does it?

Casey: Is this the quote you're referring to?

-----
"Frankly," [Clarke] said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
-----

Not exactly the same thing as saying Bush could have stopped 9/11, now is it?

It gets tiring refuting all these vague charges with facts. But hey, I'll give it a go when I can.

Adam,

Clarke had credibility, but he traded it away when he wrote a 'kiss and tell' book rather than a serious examination of the problem of terror. His book fawns over and gives a pass to Clinton, then slams Bush. A serious treatment would at least attempt even handedness. Doesn't mean he's a liar. There's nothing illegal with selling more books, stimulating a fantastic amount of useful discussion (once the blame game cools off) and helping out your party. I think he could have chosen a better course.

Yours,
Wince

So, Adam, you're saying that instead of Clarke saying "9-11 was preventable", Clarke actually said "9-11 might have been preventable".

That's still a direct contradiction of testimony given to the Senate, where he stated unequivocally that 9-11 was not preventable.

If this is what passes for reason from the left, color me extremely unimpressed.

Ok Casey, where did I say Democrats are the bastions of all that is good and true? Pause. I know, I didn't. Unfortunately, Dean didn't nail this one. The article he linked to basicly said the Republicans have been above board on Clarke and the best he can do when provided with counter-examples is to apologise for Frist's unetical behaviour by blurring the distinction beteen slurs by the majority leader (member of the R.A.M) and various and sundry bloggers who didn't assume straigt away that he was lying his ass off. Which is similar to what you're doing. Cause its much easier to point out partisans who vote Democratic making slimy accusations than Democrats who could arguably be member of the D.A.M. Bush started the war to distact voters from the economy? Who said that, and I'll condemn them in advance!

Krugman is very biased and oft-times doesn't let the facts get in the way of the theory - but you should be capable of reading the article, reading Luskin etc. and making up your own mind - and if you do that you should come away with the realisation that whitehouse officials are making slanderous, anonymous allegations which are being swallowed whole by credulous reporters.

In conclusion, the strawmen have had enough - they're going on strike until some sort of armistice is declared.

Wince:

It's clear that Clarke thought Clinton was more serious about fighting terrorism than Bush was before 9/11. Why is that necessarily partisan? He was intimately involved in both administrations. Shouldn't he be in a good position to judge the anti-terror activities of both?

BTW - Have you read the book? If so, I'd love to hear specifically why it's a "kiss and tell" and not a "serious examination of the problem of terror."

In all this, I'm wondering why anti-terror hawks like Dean aren't concerned at all about the substance of Clarke's ideas. Are you guys OK with the idea that they left Clarke's report on the shelf for 9 months? Are you OK with creating an anti-terror task force that never met? Are you OK that the administration's top anti-terror official was never allowed to brief the President on terrorism? This is what we should be talking about.

By the way, if Clarke is so wrong about Clinton why is the whitehouse refusing to release files from his administration? They seem to be pretty selective these days about what can and cannot be declassified, don't they? Richard Clarke might have perjured himself? Release the files!

Max and Adam,

You guys are rich. You imply and insinuate all sorts of things, then when called on it you try to fall back on the exact literal wording.

Fact: Clarke said, under oath, that nothing could have been done to prevent 9/11.
That is irrefutable. That is what he said, that is what he implied by saying that, there is no other way to take that.

Fact: Clarke is now saying that if President Bush had listened to him and made terrorism the priority that Clinton did, that there is at least a measurable chance 9/11 could have been prevented.

Democrats take that as truth. It is clear that Democrats take that as truth because they cite Clarke's statements in criticizing President Bush.
IF Clarke is now telling the truth, then he absolutely did commit perjury. If he is not now telling the truth, then nothing being said by the Bush Administration now constitutes an attack.
You can't have it both ways.

Do you believe what Clarke is saying now? Then you believe he committed perjury and he can't be trusted. Do you not believe what he is saying now? Then he is only saying it to make a buck and cannot be trusted.
Either way, Clarke's book and statements are absolutely a non-issue in regards to 9/11. Either way, your defense of him and criticism of the Bush Administration on this issue borders on the inane.

Honestly, guys, you really need to look up "fact" in the dictionary, because I will guarantee you that the definition does not state "Whatever Mark and/or Adam believe to be true" or even "Whatever the various self-appointed liberal spokespeople may assert or imply."

Facts must be demonstrable.

Thus, it is a fact that what Clarke said under oath is being directly contradicted by what he is saying today.

In some cases, facts can be established as "what any reasonable person would recognize as true". Reasonable people all agree that The sun will rise tomorrow, the phrases 9/11 was not preventable and 9/11 was preventable are in direct contradiction, and 9/11 was preventable by the Bush Administration but not at all by the Clinton Administration is an absolutely ridiculous assertion. The last two are summations of what Clarke has said and implied.

Looks like what we really have is a, "one man’s slime…" problem.

“Otherwise, I can't consider it to be even in the same league as the slime that Clarke himself is peddling--and that folks like you are taking such joyful delight in helping to spread, Ara.”

You mean like saying that Bush “wasn’t focused” on the Al Queda threat. The quote is Bush’s.

“Now: where's the retractions over the phoney-baloney Halliburton bullshit, which is and never has been anything remotely resembling a scandal?”

Retraction for what, the facts: Multi-billion-dollar no-bid contracts to the Vice President’s former and (probable) future employer that have already seen multiple abuses with taxpayer dollars?

“...the accusations of "lies" over WMDs”

You mean lies like: “The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” – George W. Bush, State of the Union, Jan. 28, 2003

Regarding “Things that make you go "hmmmm," unless you’re part of the Pat Robertson crowd and think 9-11 was an act of God Almightly, you understand that there any number of ways it could have been prevented. Of course they were almost all by solid law-enforcement and required no troop-deployments, invasions or occupations so I can see why some on the right might have missed them. It is no contradiction at all to say that none of the options laid before the Commander-in-Chief (unless one option was: “pull the entire FBI, law enforcement and intelligence community’s shit together in the next six months”) would have made any difference.

No wonder you right-wing partisans see a “liberal bias" in mainstream journalism and something called the "left's well-oiled "attack machine" (funny, Dean :). To you the facts are damning "slime" against the administration. Come to think of it, you’re right (except about the bias part).

I'm still waiting to hear what Dean, Nathan, Wince and others think of the Bush administration's work on terror pre-9/11. After all, that's the real substance of Clarke's charges. Are the hawks satisfied, especially with lots of non-refuted charges that the Bush team ignored the topic of terrorism as a whole? (One example: in the 100 meetings of the "Principal's Committee" chaired by Dr. Rice in the months between inauguration and 9/11, one [1] meeting was on terrorism.)

I don't think Bush could have stopped 9/11. But I am troubled that in their race to be the "anti-Clintons," they ignored the advice and expertise of credible and experienced people on the subject of terrorism, a subject they are using as the main tentpole for their re-election campaign. To me, that's what all this boils down to.

Shep: Nice spinning, m'boy.

Your Halliburton stories have already been shown to be phony-baloney, but you keep bringing them up. Ditto your spinning on "lies." They show you to be a partisan more interested in bashing than in trying to get an honest appraisal of the truth--and you say far more about yourself than Bush with that crap.

Adam: In other words, you just want to get Bush. Q.E.D.

Your questions have actually been answered fairly effectively on multiple occasions. For anyone who cares enough to have paid attention.

Have fun with your little witch hunt, boys. I can only repeat my observation that you're shooting yourselves in the foot.

Dean: Great answer, as usual. Thanks. :-)

By the way, if Clarke is so wrong about Clinton why is the whitehouse refusing to release files from his administration? They seem to be pretty selective these days about what can and cannot be declassified, don't they? Richard Clarke might have perjured himself? Release the files!

As a member of the intelligence community, I can help answer that.

Because they are CLASSIFIED!!!!!!!!!!!

You NEED to be selective about what you can and can't release to the public. That's why there are private and public hearings on the 9/11 commission.

Many documents contain information that if released, could harm the standing of our country in its wars/law enforcement/whatever we are doing against terrorism. Clarke did many briefings on terrorism, and you can't just declassify something just because someone is attacking you.

If Clarke said something during the Clinton years that was relevant to our fight today, then it needs to stay secret. No amount of attacks from Clarke will change that. My guess is that the materials being withheld are at least close to that catagory.

We don't declassify stuff until it is absolutely safe to discuss in public. Even borderline information is kept under wraps, because in the intelligence game, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Adam: I can't say; all I can say right now is I cited a quote of a quote from NRO. I have no reason to think that those folks would deliberately misquote something like that, but I've seen both sides grab a misquote and run with it, to their later embarassment. In this case, I didn't follow it up, but it sounded plausible at the time.

I have to say both sides seem to be quick off the trigger with this issue. Me, I think Clinton saw it as a law-administration issue, and didn't feel he could get the public support for more than the cruise missle attacks that did occur. And for all the Clinton-bashers, recall how much static the Phants gave him over the Balkans, much less "blowing up an asperin plant." So maybe he didn't think he could get the support.

Bush continued this policy for 8 months, with current claims that they were in the process of changing strategies.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a classic "Pearl Harbor" situation which is obvious in hindsight, but no so obvious before the fact.

I also think that Bush has let his propensity for loyalty (normally a good thing) keep certain folks that should have been let go two years ago. Tenant, for example.

Max: I know you haven't made that literal statment, but that's the effect of your posts here. When have you ever said anything to the effect of "Bush did the right thing here," or "Bush made the right call on XXX?" Ever?

Honestly, it's late, and I don't have the energy to devote to answering the next graf in your post, sorry. Maybe after work tomorrow night. There's about five things I want to post on my own blog. :(

Wanna say one thing: It sounds like your'e saying "Sure, Krugman lies; you just have to filter that out." :))

I would be able to listen to more of the Dem criticism if they (in general) would admit that Bush isn't a 100% total screw-up; that's he's made some good calls or smart moves.

I also think that both sides should focus on real issues. There's room for critiscm for both. You won't like hearing it, but I've seen more mainstream Dem politicians such as: the two congresscritters who went to Baghdad before the war, and announced that they found Hussein more trustworthy than Bush; Cynthia "Bush knew!" McKinney; that Northwestern twit (can't recall her name) who kept blabbering about what a great job bin Laden did, building schools; and Pelosi wasting way too much time huffing about one lousy joke (which, BTW, over 90% of servicement considered funny). Notice I haven't mentioned Franken or Garafola once. :)

On the other hand, I don't recall hearing any Phants calling Donks traitors, etc, although I wouldn't be surprised if Rush did. But Rush isn't part of the GOP leadership, is he?

As an aside, I know a lot of people here seem to think I am a Republican, an unthinking Bush apologist, a conservative, and (in one case) a NASCAR fanatic.

I'm none of those things. It's just these days I find the Phants less wrong (overall) than the Donks.

Ok. It's late. I'm fried. I'm outa here.

Adam,

I am basing my opinion on Clarke partisanship on other information, like the fact that Clarke says he voted for Clinton and Gore. I call his book, which I have not read, kiss and tell because it sounds like one based on the excerpts which I've read. I call it kiss and tell because it focuses on people at the expense of policy.

As you can see, this is nearly pure opinion, so you can take it with as much salt as your require. I prefer a nice balsamic vinegar, myself.

nathan,

If Clarke actually changed his mind about whether or not 9/11 was preventable, than it is a contradiction, but it is not a lie. Since Clarke is clearly stating an opinion both times, and since he is the only person who can tell us the truth about his own opinions, he is the only person who can tell us whether or not he was lying.

I refuse to give up my right to change my mind, especially as new evidence comes to light.

shep,

Calling things lies doesn't make them lies.

Yours,
Wince

Hmmm, Casey, you're probably gone, but I'll give it a go:

1. Liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
2. AIDs, Hydrogen, Middle East Initiative, Mr. Nice Guy programmes.
3. Leadership in days after 9/11; rallying country etc.
4. Damn..
5. :-) I tried!

Max,

Nice list of Bush's accomplishment's.

Yours,
Wince