is fun to watch him respond to these onslaughts. look how he handled the 9-11 panel? every rethug attack during that meeting was spun around in his favor. the guy reminds me of olle north when he was young... not that i was on north's side, just the style and the way that he can take it as well as dish it out... take a peek:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097750/<snip>
James Thompson entered the ring with a swagger, holding up a copy of Clarke's new book in one hand and a thick document in the other. "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002," he bellowed. "Which is true?" He went on to observe that none of his book's attacks on Bush can be found anywhere in that briefing.
Clarke calmly noted that, in August 2002, he was special assistant to President Bush. White House officials asked him to give a "background briefing" to the press, to minimize the political damage of a Time cover story on Bush's failure to take certain measures before 9/11. "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to play down the negative aspects," Clarke said, adding, "When one is a special assistant to the president, one is asked to do that sort of thing. I've done it for several presidents."
<snip>
John Lehman, Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan and a former colleague of Clarke's, came out not just swaggering but swinging. The 16 hours of classified testimony that Clarke gave to the commission—and the six hours he testified before the joint congressional inquiry on 9/11—were nothing like what's in the book. There is, Lehman said, "a tremendous difference, and not just in nuance," adding, "You've got a real credibility problem!" You look like "an active partisan selling a book."
Clarke began with a playful shuffle. "Thank you, John," he said, to laughter. First, he denied that he's campaigning for John Kerry and swore, under oath, that he would not take a job in a Kerry administration if there is one. Then he admitted there was a difference between his earlier testimony and his book. "There's a very good reason for that," he went on. "In the 15 hours of testimony, nobody asked me what I thought of the president's invasion of Iraq." The heart of his book's attacks surrounds the war. "By invading Iraq," he said, taking full advantage of Lehman's opening, "the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terror." End of response. Lehman said nothing.
In the second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the August 2002 press briefing. "You intended to mislead the press?" he asked, perhaps hoping to pound a wedge between the media and their new superstar.
"There's a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about," Clarke replied. Someone in his position had three choices. He could have resigned, but he had important work yet to do. He could have lied, but nobody told him to do that, and he wouldn't have in any case. "The third choice," he said, "is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts. That's what I did."
Well, Thompson asked in a bruised tone, is there one set of moral rules for special assistants to the White House and another set for everybody else?
"It's not a question of morality at all," Clarke replied. "It's a question of politics." The crowd applauded fiercely. To invoke another sports metaphor: Game, set, and match.
<snip>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
