« Oy! What Hamas! | Main | Tricksy President »

March 23, 2004
Why Clarke Isn't Lying

The White House and it's dogs have been in full attack mode for a couple days now, today releasing Clarke's resignation letter, which contained praise for the president and expressed that it had been an honor to serve him, as evidence that they guy is a flip-flopper.

Of course, they didn't mention that nobody writes scathing, angry resignation letters to the president. They leave quietly, they always say nice things. If he had written, "I'm out of here, you psychotic mutherfuckers!" would they hold that up as evidence of his consistency of opinion? No, it doesn't matter what anyone says, they'll spin it the way they want.

I obviously don't know, but there is mounting evidence that Clarke is telling the truth. Fred Kaplan at Slate makes a very convincing case. But even from my mostly uninformed position, I have to ask, why would he lie? How could he think he'd get away with it?

If charges this serious were completely without merit, as the administration is claiming, wouldn't it be easy to prove it? People like Clarke and Paul O'Neill back up what they say with documents, eye-witnesses, you know.. evidence. The White House rebuts by saying, "we think he's a jerk and he's mad because he lost his job."

Uhh.. okay, but what about those charges? Does being mad make him a liar? Can't he be mad about losing his job (I'm not saying he is) and still be telling the truth? Seriously, what about those charges?

Of course, one could ask the same questions about the president and his people. Why would they lie? Well, now they're lying to protect their asses, because they fucked up big. They may not have been really lying before, many of them probably really wanted to believe what they were saying was true, and their extreme ideology and unwillingness to reconsider their positions based on new facts (or old facts) blinded them to the truth, a trait very nearly as bad, perhaps in some ways worse, than out-and-out lying.

A partial list, thus far, of people the administration says have an axe to grind, and are lying:

  • Richard Clarke - 30 year terrorism expert
  • Paul O'Neill - former Treasury Secretary
  • David Kay - former top U.N. weapons inspector
  • Hans Blix - totally important guy
  • the CIA
  • Joe Wilson - former ambassador

And those are just people who used to be on their side (or were on nobody's side).


Previous Comments

Not all resignation letters are glowing though. Remember John Brady Kiesling's...

Still, I agree the guy seems legit. It might have been better if he wasn't also selling a book on the subject. Then again, since he's risking a 30-year governmental career, so I suppose trying to get some royalties coming in is a prudent move...

Ooooh, yeah.. I forgot about that guy. It's a good example, though still a letter like that to the Sec of State is different than to the Preznit.

As for the book, it seems to me that it's one of the only ways to get stuff like this out there and accessible to everyone. He could just go on tv and say the stuff, but there wouldn't be a thorough record and investigation to back it up and be sifted through (ha ha) by the press.

Granted, if he was donating all the proceeds from the book it would be better, but I can't fault someone for making a buck, god knows I'd like to make a few.

And, with time, I think that they will be many more.
With my respects.

Anthony - Karl Rove's spin-prints are all over the White House comments but no mention of Karl Rove anywhere. If more Amercans were aware of his past shenanigans, I think they would have greater comprehension of what the country is up against in the upcoming election. If the book "Bush's Brain" regarding Rove comes out in paperback, the White House can comment that the timing is "awful suspicious."

isn't that on hans blix's resume?

"totally important guy."