The dualists
Every time a credible source puts forth information that conflicts with the administration's black-and-white world view, the Bushies send out loyal members of the team to generate spin, discredit the source, and dominate the news cycle. They're very good at it, and until the Democrats marshal a similarly strong and aggressive team, the Republiban (thanks, Gautam) view will hold sway.
Anagram fun: Condoleeza Rice = No Dazzle, Ice Core
No team member is more loyal than National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. According to an earlier version of CNN's article on the Bushies' multifanged attack on former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, Dr. Rice "[i]n her CNN interview repeatedly pointed out that Clarke served as counterterrorism chief under the Clinton administration." The writers add that Clarke also served under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Never mind that until yesterday Richard Clarke, a registered Republican, was by all accounts a well-respected figure who has long served administrations of both parties. When you see the world through dualistic goggles, everyone falls into two camps: pro-Bush or anti. Clarke's story does not support the Bush re-election team's projected self-image as the only people American can trust to defend the realm, so Clarke must be tarred, and Clinton is the worst they have.
Given the Bush family's dismal record (0-fer) against Clinton, I find it amusing how badly they want to run against him. No doubt the moralists occupying the White House think the mere mention of Clinton's name is enough to conjure gag reflexes among voters who found that whole intern business so distasteful.
The Bushes like to think of themselves as America's ruling elite, touched by grace, suffused with class. (I've partied enough with a Bush cousin to know how much of that image is projection.) That anyone could knock them from power sticks to them like tar on a boot. So they fling tar at critics like Richard Clarke, because they fear getting the boot.
Accuse your opponents of what you do yourselves
CNN quotes Dr. Rice as calling Richard Clarke’s assertions a “rewriting of history.” She ought to be expert on that subject by now.
Dr. Rice is on record as saying that no one could have predicted hijackers would "try to use . . . a hijacked airplane as a missile."
Why then does she still refuse to appear before the 9/11 commission? Because she knows what was in the one-and-a-half-page President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, which, while refusing to read it to the press on May 16, 2002, she repeatedly described as "very general." Not like her very specific description of what they could not foresee.
As their motive for not permitting Dr. Rice to testify publicly before the nonpartisan commission, the White House cites concerns about “separation of powers.” I think their true concern is separation from power.
Final note: Happy birthday, Simon (though by now it was yesterday). I love you, sweet boy.
12:28:38 AM 
|
