Burnt Orange Report

We Know That They Are Lying

By Jim Dallas

As usual, all the TVs in my parents' house were turned on to FOX News yesterday (no, I don't have power over the remote control), and it was one non-stop marathon of Richard Clarke-bashing.

(OK, I think they did talk about the Scott Petersen trial for a few minutes).

The steady march of pundits, politicians, and "analysts" coming up with new and more exciting reasons not to believe Clarke was pretty impressive, as an exercise in political damage control. But while the Bush administration had lots of quantity, they didn't have much quality.

Because it's painfully obvious that Bush's proxies are lying.

I'm not saying Bush's proxies are liars because they're "partisan" or "disgruntled" or "out of the loop," as Clarke may or may not have been.

I am saying they are liars simply because what they are saying is counter-factual and internally-inconsistent.

They are liars not for who they are or who they work for. They are liars because they are not telling the truth.

The Blogger Formerly Known as Calpundit makes this clear:

Look, every bit of evidence indicates that the Bush foreign policy team didn't see foreign terrorism as a top priority before 9/11. What's more, it's hardly plausible that the administration's top counterterrorism guy was "out of the loop" on what was supposedly the administration's biggest counterterrorism initiative. And given his background and his known intensity toward fighting terrorism, it's also unlikely to the point of lunacy to think that if the Bushies had been planning a bigger and far more extensive anti-terrorism program than Clinton's — no more "swatting flies"! — that Clarke would have opposed it. He probably would have been dancing in the streets.

But the Bush apologists can't be happy with simply suggesting that maybe Clarke misinterpreted what he heard, and in any case 9/11 was a wakeup call for all of us, wasn't it? That would be too subtle, too honest, too nuanced for them. Instead, they have to open up the throttle all the way and insist against all evidence that in reality they were working on the mother of all counterterrorism plans before 9/11 but their chief counterterrorism guy wasn't in the loop.

It's really a pretty pathetic performance. The only thing they know how to do is attack and then attack even harder, and look where it gets them: a pile of federal investigations and stories that are spun so ludicrously that even their supporters are probably having trouble swallowing them. You'd think they'd learn eventually.

Atrios links to Moe Blues, who nails it --

So Dick Cheney is making the rounds claiming that Clarke was “out of the loop” in the administration’s counter-terror efforts. Therefore, Clarke doesn’t know what he's talking about and anything he says should be instantly discounted.

It’s amazing that Cheney does not seem to realize what he is actually saying: That the Bush administration’s top expert on terrorism was not consulted about their counter-terrorism efforts. This presents several unpalatable choices:

1. Cheney is lying for political gain. If the public picks up on this, the backlash could be out of all proportion to the damage Cheney is trying to control.

2. The administration deliberately ignored its in-house expert, with September 11 being the result. This eliminates one more scapegoat, since the White House cannot simultaneously blame Clarke for failing to stop 9/11 while claiming he was “out of the loop” on counter-terrorism.

3. Assuming Cheney speaks the truth, it actually bolsters Clarke’s claim to Cassandra-hood. Cut out of the loop, his warnings went nowhere and were ignored. That, too, is pretty damning of the administration.

With Clarke due to testify before the 9/11 Commission, how long will it be before Cheney’s statements are "no longer operative?"

It comes down to this - Richard Clarke might be less than perfect, but we know (prima facie) that the other guys are lying.

Clarke's charges deserve to be dealt with using facts and logic, not slime.

UPDATE: Daschle Agrees!

Now the White House seeks to destroy his reputation. The people around the President aren't answering his allegations; instead, they are trying to use the same tactics they used with Paul O'Neill. They are trying to ridicule Mr. Clarke and destroy his credibility, and create any diversion possible to focus attention away from his serious allegations.

The purpose of government isn't to make the President look good. It isn't to produce propaganda or misleading information. It is, instead, to do its best for the American people and to be accountable to the American people.

The people around the President don't seem to believe that. They have crossed a line -- perhaps several lines -- that no government ought to cross.

We shouldn't fire or demean people for telling the truth. We shouldn't reveal the names of law enforcement officials for political gain. And we shouldn't try to destroy people who are out to make country safer.

I think the people around the President have crossed into dangerous territory. We are seeing abuses of power that cannot be tolerated.

The President needs to put a stop to it, right now. We need to get to the truth, and the President needs to help us do that.

Posted by Jim Dallas at March 23, 2004 11:43 AM | TrackBack