Join The Debate!

Caio!

To give her credit, Kathleen Parker strives to produce an unbiased essay about Bill Clinton. Repeatedly, like a dog trying to get at an uncomfortabale itch, she returns to the issue: “As I’ve written before, Clinton has a right to be angry about distortions of his record …” she admits, later quoting Chris Matthews to note that “there’s nothing wrong with getting angry, if you’re right.”
.
Enough said, one would think, but Parker can’t leave it there. That would bring her uncomfortably close to fairness toward a man whom Parker’s core readership has demonized past any hope of rationality. So Parker looks more closely and – lo and behold – discovers that Clinton’s anger betrays something sinister. Who would have thought it?
.
Digging into her Irish heritage, Parker tell us that Clintons face took on the characteristics of a “ ‘warpspasm,’ a transformative anger that revealed a repressed rage …” But, of course. Nothing Clinton does can ever be considered normal. The rest of humanity can become justifiably angry about partisan journalism, but not Clinton. His anger must somehow be portrayed as outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

But even this isn’t enough. Rooting around in her circumscribed vocabulary for some other derogatory description, Parker comes up with a Tokienesque gem. This flare of temper, she reveals, was Clinton’s “inner Gollum” manifesting itself. Come again? That’s right, Parker compares Clinton to Gollum. Quel naturel!

So pleased is Parker with this unlikely turn of phrase that she can’t resist applying it again, this time as a way of belittling Clinton’s current compaign to raise money for humanitarian purposes. “To be fair,” she notes, “Clinton deserves much credit for raising billions to fund his charitable work in the world's dirtiest trenches, from tsunami reconstruction to the fight against AIDS.”

Indeed he does. A more principled journalist would have concluded her essay at this point; but Parker, mindful of the red-eyed zealots panting in the upper tiers, can’t resist extending her inappropriate metaphor for one last dig. Clinton’s philanthropic work, she tells us, is merely part of “the legacy he is working so hard to create… his “precious.”

Enough, one feels like crying; but even this is apparently not sufficiently tasteless and unprofessional. Stooping even lower, if such were possible, Parker drags out that old right wing stand-by: Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, she declares solemnly “Did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. And he did not fail to connect the dots concerning that man, Mr. bin Laden.”

And so, in good odor at last with her fans, Parker wraps up this feculent mess and tosses it out for comment.

***
If I felt an urge to shower after reading Parker’s essay, that was nothing compared to the way I felt while reading the posts that followed it, which are appalling even by Townhall standards for mindless animosty. Nevertheless, it seemed like an ideal place to “fish.” It’s an easy sport. Throw out a provocative factual morsel, wait for a “well informed” right wing fanatic to bite, and reel him in. The amazing thing about this game is the utter conviction with which you folks present your blinkered version of history. It comes, I realize, from getting ones information solely from the likes of Faux News and Rush Limbaugh, but it's remarkable nevertheless. One would think normal curiosity would lead conservatives to reassess their purblind convictions at least once in a while; but that evidently doesn’t happen – or at least on one admits it.

Somehow, this time around, the game has lost its zest. As I wrote the response to bakedbones last night, I didn’t feel satisfied or vindicated. Just depressed. Sure, he’s ignorant of the facts. That’s not hard to demonstrate. He says that Cheney’s anti-terrorism taskforce (that never met before 9-11) is “news" to him, as if this makes it in any way dubious! Will pointing out the facts in this case make any difference to him? I doubt it. What’s the purpose of debating people who think that George Bush is a moral individual, who find reasons to advocate torture as an instrument of American national policy, who argue with every evidence of conviction that every single muslim in the world is their enemy? Surely anyone so divorced from reality will be immune to any rational argument I could make. I’ve never met a neo-Nazi, the kind who has a picture of Adolf Hitler on his bedroom wall, but I’ve read some of their stuff. It differs to a frighteningly insignificant degree from much of the ranting that appears on this website.

Amazing how things change, when the gleam is gone. Why buff up my post in the usual fashon? No one cares how well (or ill) I write. Certainly few, if any, care what I write. As I’ve noted before, the standard response to well crafted, carefully documented arguments on this website has so far been to quietly withdraw from the debate. I have yet to see a single honest admission of error from anyone on this site. Not one. Apparently everyone who posts here is correct all the time. What’s to be gained from interacting with such egotistical fools? Sure, I learn while researching my own posts; but has that been worth the effort? Right now it hardly seems so. I’ve spent too much time here. For every informative and rewarding debate I’ve found at Townhall – countable on one hand! - I’ve had to sift through endless pages of the kind of vicious and vacuous barking that fills this thread.

It’s time to move on.

But first I’m going to shower.


** **
To bakedbones –
This post isn’t documented as well as usual, for which I apologize; but there’s enough here for you to follow, if you’re genuinely interested in understanding. (Yeah, I know: bad joke!)

To avoid confusion, I’ll go along with your choice of order.

Item #3, I refer you to the “National Security Archive” website:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

Here you will find references to the recently declassified January 25, 2001 memo from Richard Clarke to Condoleezza Rice which states: “We urgently need a Principals level review on the al Qida network” and goes on to give a succinct and strikingly accurate description of the terrorist organization. Among other things, the memo informed Rice that Al Qaeda was “not just some narrow, little terrorist issue” but a “transnational challenge to the US and our interests.”

The memo had two attachments:
1- The recently declassified "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects"
2- The September 1998 "Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida," the so-called Delenda Plan, which remains classified

You can also read transcripts here from Congressional testimony during which Rice tried to wriggle off the hook by claiming the Bush administration postponed doing anything about al Qaeda because they were working on “strategic” plans instead of mere “tactical” proposals.

Rice has also attempted to dismiss Clarke’s plans by describing them as “incomplete.” This opinion obviously wasn’t shared by other Bush staff members. On April 30, 2001 Clarke presented a revised version of his plan to deputies of the major national security principals: Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; the State Department's Richard Armitage; DOD's Paul Wolfowitz; and the CIA's John McLaughlin. They were so impressed with his proposals that they scheduled additional meetings to explore them further.

Rice’s lack of candor on the issue is remeniscent of her ludicrous effort to minimize the August 6, 2001 PDB that Bush ignored prior to the September 11th attack. Rice at first tried to pass off the PDB as merely “historical” [ I was watching the Senate hearings, during which she gave this testimony.]; but, when she was compelled reluctantly to recite the paper’s title: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States," it was clearly written in the present tense! Like her boss, Rice tells stupid lies.

In fact, this paragon of virtue has demonstrated only one thing clearly besides her manifest incompetence: that’s her willingness to lie at the drop of a hat in support of her patron’s policies. I believe Rice was the source of the infamous remark about a “smoking gun” in the “form of a mushroom cloud” that was used to sell their claims about WMDs to the public. She also lied about the purpose of those aluminum tubes.

“Condi” truthful? Don’t make me laugh!

Let’s turn to Item #4, the one that you label as “hearsay,” I’m inclined to believe Berger’s (and Clinton’s) account, since this was actually supported by a report in the New York Times. According to the article (December 30, 2001) during January, 2001 Berger arranged ten briefings for the incoming National Security Advisor and Stephen Hadley, her deputy.

"As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism-and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it-would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined."

Since the NYT article was written, Rice has seen fit to retract her endorsement of its account, consistent with her normal practice of prevarication.

Item #5 –We’ve just established (see above) that Clarke had a plan to combat al Qaeda and was eager to implement it - or at least to see it implemented. If he was demoted and cut off from access to the Principals level in the White House, presumably Bush had someone equally effective and well prepared to take his place. Who was that individual and what were his accomplishments during the next nine months. I’d say, if you can’t produce this information, then my interpretation is correct by default.

Item #6 – Probably spurred by the February appearance of the Hart-Rudman report (which actually did address terrorism and was therefore actively opposed by Cheney) Bush announced on 8 May 2001 the formation of an anti-terrorism “task force” to be chaired by Cheney. Bush himself would, he said, “periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.”

See CBS News, "New Terror Task Force. Cheney To Lead at Terrorist Threats
to U.S." from May 8, 2001, as well as a CNN report headlined "Cheney is point
man for administration” dated June 30, 2001”

Neither Bush nor Cheney held a single meeting of their respective groups.

Item #6 – Is this why presidents in such circumstances are called “lame ducks”? Your assertions are patently ridiculous. Clinton faced a hostile Congress that had only recently attempted to remove him from office. He knew he’d get no support from them. No responsible president would risk the lives of our troops by beginning a potentially long term and difficult military operation under such circumstances.

Wait, that's not true! One president clearly has no problem with such reckless disregard for American soldiers, but he hadn’t yet taken office in 2000.

PS – You left out Item #2, but perhaps you actually knew the facts in that case. To be complete, Cheney was given the definitive report documenting that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole attack on Feb 9, 2001, far too late for the information to have helped Clinton justify military action against Afghanistan.

Oh, right! You also left out the bonus question! So what can you tell us? What did Bush do to combat terrorism between January and September, 2001? Take all the space you need.