Sunday, March 28, 2004
After a week of incessant attacks, the Washington Post reports that Bush's efforts to damage the credibility of Richard Clarke are stymied. This has been a sobering experience to watch the gradual escalation of these attacks. To my regret a number of my favorite bloggers have chosen to join in.
The case against him seems to hinge quite a bit on accusing him of hypocrisy or deceit for speaking in praise of the administration while he was a member of it. This rather confuses the question of what his role was - one component of that would be to highlight administration successes. One really does not expect government officials to denounce an administration while part of it - this is in explicit contravention to their role in drafting, implementing and furthering policy.
Also he seems to have been charged with the failures of the Clinton administration. This drags in the problems of hindsight - up until the last years of it, Al Qaeda was simply and plausibly seen as one problem among many. Also it makes him responsible for decisions made above his head, often against his own advice.
Charles Krauhammer blasts him for not resigning during the Clinton years - this is a strange argument for making a symbolic response. One doesn't usually see conservatives arguing this way. Or being so scornful about Clarke's alarm at "increased chatter" in May and June of 2001. Somehow I doubt that Krauthammer would be so scornful were the Bush administration to issue a national alert based on increased chatter today - and today we are much more jaded about such things. Krauthammer takes the party line when he attributes Clarke's frustration to petty career ambitions - in the last paragraph of his attack dog piece.
David Brooks at the New York Times also falls into the hindsight camp. There seems to be particular scorn over the administration's involvement in Yugoslavia after the Kenya and Tanzania bombings. Let's turn back the clock, shall we, and reconsider how much of a threat that the atrocities in Kosovo and potential for regional instability posed to the NATO alliance. There were broad - and we now know - justified fears of violence spreading into Albania and eventually involving Greece and Turkey, though not on the same side. Plus the possibility that a refugee population would be susceptible to Islamic fundamentalism. Brooks is willing to concede that the blame goes around, but then assigns the administration's share of it to its willingness to get into the mud with Clarke. How about its actions before 9/11, when it prioritized missile defense over anti-terrorist initiatives? That's not a question he wants to ask, just like most of the conservatives who inhabit our op-ed pages.
The campaign against Clarke was foredestined to go into the gutter because this administration cannot cognitively deal with critics any other way. That it has lashed out against the man most responsible for alerting the government to the threat of Al Qaeda is a sorry measure of its irresponsibility and brittle character.
The case against him seems to hinge quite a bit on accusing him of hypocrisy or deceit for speaking in praise of the administration while he was a member of it. This rather confuses the question of what his role was - one component of that would be to highlight administration successes. One really does not expect government officials to denounce an administration while part of it - this is in explicit contravention to their role in drafting, implementing and furthering policy.
Also he seems to have been charged with the failures of the Clinton administration. This drags in the problems of hindsight - up until the last years of it, Al Qaeda was simply and plausibly seen as one problem among many. Also it makes him responsible for decisions made above his head, often against his own advice.
Charles Krauhammer blasts him for not resigning during the Clinton years - this is a strange argument for making a symbolic response. One doesn't usually see conservatives arguing this way. Or being so scornful about Clarke's alarm at "increased chatter" in May and June of 2001. Somehow I doubt that Krauthammer would be so scornful were the Bush administration to issue a national alert based on increased chatter today - and today we are much more jaded about such things. Krauthammer takes the party line when he attributes Clarke's frustration to petty career ambitions - in the last paragraph of his attack dog piece.
David Brooks at the New York Times also falls into the hindsight camp. There seems to be particular scorn over the administration's involvement in Yugoslavia after the Kenya and Tanzania bombings. Let's turn back the clock, shall we, and reconsider how much of a threat that the atrocities in Kosovo and potential for regional instability posed to the NATO alliance. There were broad - and we now know - justified fears of violence spreading into Albania and eventually involving Greece and Turkey, though not on the same side. Plus the possibility that a refugee population would be susceptible to Islamic fundamentalism. Brooks is willing to concede that the blame goes around, but then assigns the administration's share of it to its willingness to get into the mud with Clarke. How about its actions before 9/11, when it prioritized missile defense over anti-terrorist initiatives? That's not a question he wants to ask, just like most of the conservatives who inhabit our op-ed pages.
The campaign against Clarke was foredestined to go into the gutter because this administration cannot cognitively deal with critics any other way. That it has lashed out against the man most responsible for alerting the government to the threat of Al Qaeda is a sorry measure of its irresponsibility and brittle character.
