Another voucher for Clarke

March 23, 2004 6:01 PM

Another voucher for Clarke[...]And like Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, and myself, Mr. Kaplan thinks the allegations are true because the White House has focused its counter-battery fire on Mr. Clarke's credibility -- not the substance of his assertions[...]
posted by Postroad (54 comments total)

I agree, but I also think that's commonly referred to as "debating" in their circle.
posted by The God Complex at 6:20 PM on March 23, 2004

At least here on MeFi we have (theoretically) learned that ad hominem attack does not a sound defense make. I say we let MeFi members run the government, and throw out these uneducated lunkheads. The arguments will surely be just as bitter, but at least we have proper debate, goddammit.
posted by kaibutsu at 6:27 PM on March 23, 2004

I laughed out loud when I heard Cheney said that "out of the loop" thing. When you add Clarke to O'Neill and Wilson, you get criminal negligence. And--If there were daily warnings about Al Qaeda and airplane hijackings, even down at the ranch during Bush's monthlong vacation, why didn't they do anything?

And Condi not publicly testifying stinks of some more shit still to be revealed.

Atrios has excellent coverage of this, with sources pointing out all of their continuing lies.
posted by amberglow at 6:30 PM on March 23, 2004

this is great too: Claim vs. Fact from Center for American Progress
posted by amberglow at 6:34 PM on March 23, 2004

I would trust most of the conservatives here over the chuckleheads and lunkheads currently in power. Though I would trust the liberals more.
posted by Slagman at 6:42 PM on March 23, 2004

Another vouchsafe for Clarke
posted by Slagman at 6:43 PM on March 23, 2004

the White House has focused its counter-battery fire on Mr. Clarke's credibility -- not the substance of his assertions

Attacking credibility is the best they can do: they go down from there, not up: doing a smear job, pulling unsavory facts out of their files, exposing the wife as a CIA operative... Does history record a single case of this White House ever arguing an issue on the facts?

The really pitiful thing is Cheney going on Limbaugh for this; not even finding a tame journalist to lob softballs at him was safe enough this time: he had to find ranting demogoguic cheerleader whose entire stock in trade is demonization; one who is himself so terrified of facts that his usual rule is to never appear camera with any other person: it would be entirely too easy for that person to show him up for the idiot he is.

Words fail -- just when you think they can't go any lower, they show you something new...
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:13 PM on March 23, 2004

Salon Interview with Clarke.
posted by homunculus at 8:03 PM on March 23, 2004

And Condi not publicly testifying stinks of some more shit still to be revealed.

God forbid the National Security Advisor might not want to reveal possible Secret Intelligence data to the American Media during the course of her Testimony
posted by WLW at 8:11 PM on March 23, 2004

Here's an earlier thread on Rand Beers.
posted by homunculus at 8:18 PM on March 23, 2004

The same thing happened when a senior intelligence officer (reporting directly to the PM no less) came out in Australia claiming the intelligence on Iraq was wrong.

The Aust. govt attacked his credibilty and claimed he was out of the loop.
posted by plebmaster at 8:32 PM on March 23, 2004

I believe that Dick Clark is telling the truth!
posted by SPrintF at 8:37 PM on March 23, 2004

God forbid the National Security Advisor might not want to reveal possible Secret Intelligence data to the American Media during the course of her Testimony
She's on every news network trashing Clarke--she can find a little time to report to us, the people she works for.

And speaking of "Secrets," we need to see the Daily Presidential Briefings too, for the month before 9/11. He works for us too, although he probably wouldn't admit to it, and doesn't act like it.
posted by amberglow at 8:39 PM on March 23, 2004

God Forbid Someone In A Position Of Power In A Democratic State Might Reveal To The People What She Actually Does All Day.
posted by ook at 8:53 PM on March 23, 2004

Check out this fucking whore. Spread'em Johnny Boy.
posted by Slagman at 8:56 PM on March 23, 2004

Right-wing columnist writes column supporting right-wing position in right-wing newspaper.

News at 11. Bulletins at once.
posted by owillis at 9:12 PM on March 23, 2004

postroad is running with the bigboys ... :)
posted by specialk420 at 9:17 PM on March 23, 2004

Good interviews with Clarke in this Frontline about cyber warfare. You can watch it online in Real format.
posted by anathema at 9:17 PM on March 23, 2004

You could wrap fish in the Post but you'd just ruin the fish.
posted by bshort at 9:21 PM on March 23, 2004

Slagman, thanks for linking that Podhoretz column:
What Clarke reveals in "Against All Enemies" is that - not to put too fine a point on it - he is a self-regarding buffoon.

John Podhoretz should certainly be familiar with self-regarding buffoons, given that his father is Norman Podhoretz.

Clarke's interview on Charlie Rose last night was pretty interesting, too. Maybe somebody with better Web-Fu than I can find a transcript of that.

Also: Okay, as long as you got a voucher.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:03 PM on March 23, 2004

There is something eerie about this thread. The Podhoretz article and the Bush administration argue that Clarke has no credibility in his wild accusations. The MeFi outrage is that someone might criticize a person's credibility instead of the substance of that person's arguments. But the MeFi outrage takes the form of making personal insults and attacking the credibility of Podhoretz and the Bush administration instead the content. Pohoretz notes some pretty damning things about Clarke, but who cares because he *is* Podhoretz, you see? And the article is in the NY Post, see?

Who said irony is dead?
posted by Seth at 6:48 AM on March 24, 2004

The sad thing is, the Bush response to Clark and O'Neal may be desperate, cynical and disingenuous to a fault.

But achieves its aims. It resonates with their supporters and takes out the real threat: turning their supporters away to the other candidate.

As for those already against the Bush Admin, see: Preaching to the Choir.

As can be seen here at MeFi, most everyone already has their mind very made up on this. Its gonna be a repeat of the 200 "election". 45% vs 45% with the election in the hands of a small number of undecided. And the fight over that remaining 5% is sure to down & dirty and decidedly off the merits.
posted by BentPenguin at 7:28 AM on March 24, 2004

What good points were those, Seth? He convinced me of nothing, other than that he has an ax to grind, and he spends much of his time insulting the author in a spiteful way. I got the feeling, and I'm 99.9 percent sure I'm not wrong, that he would've praised Clarke if he'd been nice to Bush.

Meanwhile, Podhoretz is a partisan. Since when it is wrong to let that weigh heavily in determining the column's credibility? He bills himself as a partisan, even, and does write for a paper with a conservative rep.

Of course, that shouldn't be all you have to say. Backing up opinion with facts and investigative footwork can boost the credibility of a partisan, and make the columnist a worthwhile read. But I don't see any investigative reporting here, no attempt to discover the truth about anything. Just suppositions, quotes probably pulled out of context and insults.
posted by raysmj at 7:57 AM on March 24, 2004

There is something eerie about Seth's posts. Bushfilter stories are wrong, deeply wrong, and for the good of MeFi they shouldn't be posted, and we certainly shouln't be discussing them. And yet here he is as always, pretending to be opposed to them for impartial reasons and yet clearly and blatantly partisan about it, and using a partisan tactic: if the facts don't support your cause, change the subject to whether they should be discussed at all. If the discussion is not going to go your way, try to disrupt the discussion. Okay, I'll bite Seth: what are those "pretty damning things" that Podhoretz notes? All he does is create absurdist, mocking paraphrases of what he claims Clarik says: in the full knowledge that his readers aren't going to catch him at it because none of them will have read it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:04 AM on March 24, 2004

ray and George,

I didn't say that Podhoretz said correct things that should discredit Clarke. I said he said damning things, that is, if they are true, they are important. This is the exact same situation with Clarke. He said some damning things, but they are only important if they are true.

My point is that there is an extreme disconnect with the critique presented here directed at those who are rebutting Clarke and how those in this thread attacked Pohoretz, NY Post, Bush, etc. It isn't correct to note that Clarke might be a partisan and have an axe to grind instead of defending against Clarke's substantive arguments, but it is correct to make that same accusation of partisanship against the rest. It is absurd. (Note the even further attempt to smear me for bring all of this up!)

One must accept one of two premises:
1. Attack arguments substantively, and apply that demand to those that criticize Clarke and to your analysis of those that criticize Clarke.
2. Recognize that importance of credibility attacks. If you do this, though, it increasingly becomes a hall of mirrors where you criticize the credibility of someone who is attacking the credibility of someone who is making a point about someone else's credibility.

There is an obvious disconnect in this thread between those who demand substantive dialogue and the way those demanding people apply ad hominem attacks. I was pointing out the naked emperor. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
posted by Seth at 8:23 AM on March 24, 2004

God forbid the National Security Advisor might not want to reveal possible Secret Intelligence data to the American Media during the course of her Testimony

These people aren't giving testimony off the top of their heads, where this type of error could be possible. They're reading prepared testimony.

It seems that the Bush administration either cares nothing about the appearance of impropriety, or they are in fact engaged in improper behaviours.
posted by mosch at 8:29 AM on March 24, 2004

Not to put too blunt of a point on it, but let me make it clear:

the White House has focused its counter-battery fire on Mr. Clarke's credibility -- not the substance of his assertions
Fair enough. This is a good point. Attack the substance of someone's accusation and not their credibility. This leads to a good discussion instead of mindless mud-slinging.

At least here on MeFi we have (theoretically) learned that ad hominem attack does not a sound defense make. ...throw out these uneducated lunkheads.
If you can't respect the splendid irony in this statement, then all is lost.

Attacking credibility is the best they can do ...ranting demogoguic cheerleader whose entire stock in trade is demonization ... to show him up for the idiot he is
Is attacking his credibility the best that this poster could do?

An then there is Podhoretz, who should be arguing the facts and issues and not attacking credibility. After Podhoretz argument is presented via a link, here is the facts and issues treatment of Podhoretz:

fucking whore. Spread'em Johnny Boy

Right-wing columnist writes column supporting right-wing position in right-wing newspaper.

John Podhoretz should certainly be familiar with self-regarding buffoons, given that his father is Norman Podhoretz. (Smearing someone by smearing there dad... how topical!)

You could wrap fish in the Post but you'd just ruin the fish.

Do you see it yet?
posted by Seth at 8:35 AM on March 24, 2004

Seth: We don't know that Clarke is a partisan. It is known that he voted in the Republican primary in 2000, and voted for McCain, and served in both GOP and Dem. administrations. He has also stated for the record that he's an independent.

Podhoretz is an absolute partisan. His record as a columnist proves it. And the burden was on him to substantiate the charges, rather than just make them. Clarke has, from what I've read, provided documents that back his position, and other sources have backed him up independently, etc.
posted by raysmj at 8:39 AM on March 24, 2004

Well, you certainly didn't mind that Podhoretz engaged in petty, personal insults. Didn't hurt his credibility with you in the least.
posted by raysmj at 8:41 AM on March 24, 2004

This is not about Podhoretz. Making it about him is a distraction from the actual claims and facts that Clarke has made, and that the White House has not rebutted.
posted by amberglow at 9:17 AM on March 24, 2004

Well, you certainly didn't mind that Podhoretz engaged in petty, personal insults. Didn't hurt his credibility with you in the least.
posted by raysmj at 8:41 AM PST on March 24

Where did I say I didn't mind it?

In fact, I think people should attack someone on the substance of their argument as opposed to ad hominem attacks.

But can you not appreciate the hypocrisy of criticizing Podhoretz's use of insults by insulting Podhoretz b/c of his dad, the paper or by calling him a whore?
posted by Seth at 9:18 AM on March 24, 2004

No, because all his credbility was shot by the way he wrote the column
posted by raysmj at 10:01 AM on March 24, 2004

notice how all the big wigs at the WH are refering him to him as "Dick Clarke".
posted by clavdivs at 11:46 AM on March 24, 2004

So people should be ignored if they have no credibility raysmj? There is no way that Podhoretz criticism might be valid? Does this 'breaking' news perhaps indicate that maybe this Clarke guy is making stuff up? Perhaps might someone be cautious in the future when suggesting that only one side of an issue has credibility problems?
posted by Seth at 11:48 AM on March 24, 2004

=one him
posted by clavdivs at 11:48 AM on March 24, 2004

What does the latter have to do with Podhoretz's column? Not a damn thing, and his column was still ridiculous. Meanwhile, the rest of what you linked there is beside the point. Clarke has backing, and others have found backing, for several very specific accusations he has made of late. The same is pointed out in the some of articles linked before you ran off yelling about being fair to Podhoretz, who is deserving on no further attention here.
posted by raysmj at 12:04 PM on March 24, 2004

ray,

If you followed this thread, my point was not to defend Podhoretz. I couldn't give a shit about him. My point was the utter irony of people talking about attacks against someone's credibility instead of issues who then, in the next sentence, attack a different person's credibility.

Christ. Learn how to follow the damn thread.
posted by Seth at 12:14 PM on March 24, 2004

Seth, do you want some bubble gum? I'd loan you a smoke, but I quit that a long time ago now.
posted by raysmj at 12:20 PM on March 24, 2004

lets us look at this with a brain.

someone list the accusations, keep it to perhaps 10 or 12. list them like.

-I wanted to bomb OBL the day the COLE was bombed but no one listened.

-The president made me feel uncomfortable in a private converstaion (which he does not recall) and i felt he did not take my advice

-No, i will not work for a Kerry administartion.

-No plan or a weak plan was drawn up and implimented from jan. 2001-sept. 2001

ya know point by point and perhaps the members of metafilter can actually discuss these things.
posted by clavdivs at 12:35 PM on March 24, 2004

John Podhoretz should certainly be familiar with self-regarding buffoons, given that his father is Norman Podhoretz. (Smearing someone by smearing there dad... how topical!)

Was that a smear? I don't think so. I'm just pointing out the humor in Podhoretz's choice of insults. I assume you are familiar with Norman Podhoretz? If so, you'll understand that John Podhoretz calling someone a "self-regarding buffoon" is a bit like Kim Jong Il's son calling someone a "pompadoured megalomaniac."

In fact, I think people should attack someone on the substance of their argument as opposed to ad hominem attacks.

That's fine, except that the substance of Podhoretz's column is...an ad hominem attack. You're right, though, that arguments should be dealt with on their merits. Podhoretz, however, is not really putting forth an argument so much as stringing together a series of insults. Which is precisely his function as a partisan hack.

Personally, I have no problem with a little ad hominem now and then (you sodding git) as long as it's skillfully woven into a larger substantive argument.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:46 PM on March 24, 2004

Very early on, in the first days of the Bush Administration, Richard Clark presented plans for strikes against Al Qaeda camps. The Bush Administration ignored these proposals, and it also seems to have ignored Clark's warnings that Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the US were a "major threat:

"January 25, 2001: Richard Clarke, National Security Council Chief of Counterterrorism and holdover from the Clinton administration, submits a proposal to the new administration for an attack on al-Qaeda in revenge of the USS Cole bombing. In the wake of that bombing, Bush stated on the campaign trail: "I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action ...? there must be a consequence." According to the Washington Post: "Clarke argued that the camps were can't-miss targets, and they mattered. The facilities amounted to conveyor belts for al-Qaeda's human capital, with raw recruits arriving and trained fighters departing either for front lines against the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel coalition, or against American interests somewhere else. The US government had whole libraries of images filmed over Tarnak Qila and its sister camp, Garmabat Ghar, 19 miles farther west. Why watch al-Qaeda train several thousand men a year and then chase them around the world when they left?" [Washington Post, 1/20/02] Clarke also warns that al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US are a "major threat." Two days later, the US confirms the link between al-Qaeda and the USS Cole bombing. [PBS Frontline 10/3/02] No retaliation is taken on these camps until after 9/11. [Washington Post, 1/20/02]" - From "The Complete 9-11 Timeline"

Only a few days later, the 2 1/2 year long research project, by the bipartisan US Commission on National Security, culminated in the public release of the Hart-Rudman Report - a study of the terrorism threat which confronted the United States : "January 31, 2001: The final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D), and Warren Rudman (R) is issued (see also September 15, 1999). The bipartisan report was put together in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The report has 50 recommendations on how to combat terrorism in the US, but all of them are ignored by the Bush Administration. Instead, the White House announces in May that it will have Vice President Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism, despite the fact that this commission had just studied the issue for 2 1/2 years. According to Senator Hart, Congress was taking the commission's suggestions seriously, but then, "Frankly, the White House shut it down... The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president'" (from "The Complete 9-11 Timeline")".

Clinton's Oval Office plo chops now seem, in comparison, to be laughably minor offenses.
posted by troutfishing at 1:42 PM on March 24, 2004

Does this 'breaking' news perhaps indicate that maybe this Clarke guy is making stuff up? Perhaps might someone be cautious in the future when suggesting that only one side of an issue has credibility problems?

Quoting Glenn 'oh, this is too hard for my tiny brain to comprehend' Reynolds when talking about 'credibility problems' certainly has a degree of irony attached to it. And yes, that's ad hominem. Substantively, Clarke was on the White House payroll when he gave that background briefing: no story there. And there's more credibility attached to testifying under oath than hiding in a cupboard and issuing soundbites. (That's you, Ms Rice.) Since the Republicans made so much of lying under oath during the Clinton years, I presume that a perjury charge is only days away?

And it's a pity that Fox News appears (shock! horror!) to have sacrificed journalistic ethics to contribute to the smear campaign. Perhaps everyone else will now be allowed to leak one background briefing of their own: say, the ones about the outing of Ambassador Wilson's wife?
posted by riviera at 5:13 PM on March 24, 2004

I'm thinking Condi's afraid of being hit by lightning if she testifies under oath.

And this is very interesting, given Clarke's statements about her, from USA Today in 2000: Still, Bush advisers concede that there are significant gaps in Rice's expertise. A self-described ''Europeanist,'' who built her reputation as an expert on the old Soviet Union, her first mentor was Josef Korbel, the father of another Soviet hand, outgoing Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

In interviews earlier this year, Rice revealed ignorance about rivalries in southwest Asia, the most virulent breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. She told The New York Times that Iran, which follows the Shiite minority sect of the Muslim religion, had tried to spread fundamentalist Islam to the Taliban, a hard-core Sunni Muslim group that rules most of Afghanistan and has become a bitter foe of the Iranian regime. Rice told USA TODAY during the Republican National Convention last summer that ''you have the Iranians doing all kinds of things with Pakistan.'' In fact, Pakistan, a Sunni Muslim country, has been on the outs with Iran for at least six years, in large part because of Pakistani support for the Taliban.

Scowcroft concedes that Rice ''needs to broaden herself'' on Asia and the Middle East but says ''there is no question she can do it.''
posted by amberglow at 5:31 PM on March 24, 2004

oops..forgot the link
posted by amberglow at 5:38 PM on March 24, 2004

amberglow: Condi Rice's expertise has long been considered... um, a little past its sell-by date. She's to foreign affairs what Betamax is to home video. It's interesting to read her 2000 article from Foreign Affairs (an adapted version here) and see how, while the argument is about dealing with the post-Cold War transition, it's very square-peg/round-hole. Especially when you get statements like this:

The president must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. It is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society. Military force is best used to support clear political goals, whether limited, such as expelling Saddam from Kuwait, or comprehensive, such as demanding the unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany during World War II. It is one thing to have a limited political goal and to fight decisively for it; it is quite another to apply military force incrementally, hoping to find a political solution somewhere along the way.

Uh-huh. Lots of talk about dealing with Russia and China, nods to N. Korea and Iraq, and fuck-all about non-state terrorism. Of course, the line is that '9/11 changed everything'. Which now hangs rather strangely with the attacks on Clarke, and their premise that Bushco was doing lots and lots and lots behind the scenes.
posted by riviera at 6:21 PM on March 24, 2004

I didn't know it was old news about her, riviera (it was new to me when Clarke spoke out about her not knowing who Al Qaeda were)
posted by amberglow at 6:50 PM on March 24, 2004

I got to hear much of the 9/11 commission hearings today and yesterday. I am in large part responding to them as much as I am on this article or any other linked in the thread.

It has been my impression that the current administration has set itself up for this attention. It seemed to me that nearly every policy undertaken by the Clinton administration was put on hold or under review, particularly foreign policy and security issues, IMHO for primarily ideological reasons. I'm sure the Bush incoming admin did the same with Clinton's terrorism countermeasures.

Clarke strikes me as a bureaucrat, not a politician. I doubt he has an "axe to grind" as some suggest. Instead of getting facts from the White House giving people at least something to think about, the people get soundbites and accusations.

Rice not testifying only makes me more nervous. This administration IMHO has an obsession with information control. I'm confident Armitage said only what was going to be said by Rice anyway, but it makes me wonder why not try to give the appearance of a concession?
posted by infowar at 7:40 PM on March 24, 2004

oh, and Clarke apologizing for letting us all down re: 9/11 is the classiest thing any govt. official has done in ages. It's another gigantic difference between him and the current administration.
posted by amberglow at 7:49 PM on March 24, 2004

Seth

Exactly how is Clarke a partisan? Because he criticized Bush? The guy worked for Reagan and Bush I & II. He apparently voted Republican in the last election (Virginia primary requires you to ask for a D or R ballot in the primary; he says he voted for McCain in a Salon interview). As a member of the Bush White House, he worked in good faith to in fact defend the administration's policy by spinning what it was doing in a positive light; that's the significance of the August 2002 briefing. Which, incidentally, was a backgrounder that the White House had no business linking to him. Journalists go to jail to protect sources, yet Fox greedily outed him for partisan purposes, when the White House pointed it out. If I were a national security official who regularly briefs the press on background, I might think twice about what I say at a background briefing, sanctioned or otherwise, in the future, if this is how this White House plays this game.
posted by Slagman at 10:32 PM on March 24, 2004

He has also sworn, under oath, that he would not accept a post in a Kerry administration.

He's holding up pretty well considering that 20 different White House officials are issuing 20 different lies about him hourly today.
posted by Slagman at 10:34 PM on March 24, 2004

"Claim vs. Fact: Administration Officials Respond to Richard Clarke Interview"
posted by troutfishing at 6:56 AM on March 25, 2004

WH
posted by clavdivs at 8:45 AM on March 25, 2004

Families of 9/11 Victims Laud Clarke for Apology
posted by homunculus at 2:36 PM on March 25, 2004

"We're all on Clarke patrol"
posted by homunculus at 7:36 PM on March 25, 2004