Sometimes the ripples are as telling as the stone
Another column, this one by Joe Conason, about the Clarke book.
I’m starting to think that the reaction by Bush and his cronies is as important as any charge Clarke makes. As has been pointed out by a couple of others, if those charges were false, they should be pretty easy to disprove. Instead, they denigrate a man who…well, as Conason puts it:
“Mr. Clarke is a nonpartisan professional who has devoted his life to national security, serving four Presidents of both parties during a distinguished public career that spanned 30 years. Unlike most of those who have rushed to criticize him, he rose to the highest levels of government strictly on merit rather than family or political connections. His devotion to duty and his qualifications in his field may be measured by his role on Sept. 11, 2001. He ran the Situation Room in the hours immediately after the attacks, while the President flew to Offutt Air Force Base and the Vice President sat in a fortified bunker. When the White House was evacuated in fear of another suicidal crash assault, he stayed there to continue his work.”
Now does that sound like man whose motives and ethics you want to question?
And how long do you think it’ll be before we start hearing Kerry/Clarke talk? If only Wesley Clark had won the nomination, we could have had Clark/Clarke…
ETA: Clarke is to be the guest on Fresh Air on NPR this evening. Following that link should help you find where and when it’s on in your area.
ETA, again: I hope more than a few of you listened. .the man makes a hard-to-refute argument. It’s that weird thing of attacking something and actually having information on your side that gives you the appearance of being right. Novel tactic, isn’t it? Here are two accounts of Clarke’s “trial by GOP fire,” one by Mark Evanier, the other from The Washington Post.
