Chalabigate
"Weapons of Mass Deception"
2004-03-28
Smearing character as a defense against truth
Maureen Dowd,
New York Times Service
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Washington -- AS THE WHITE HOUSE was sliming Richard Clarke, the Sept. 11 families were stroking him.
Several relatives of victims surrounded the former counterterrorism chief after his testimony Wednesday and reached out to pat him. After being condescended to, stonewalled, led on and put off by the White House, they were glad to hear somebody say: "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you."
"Mr. Clarke is the first person who has apologized to the families and held himself accountable," said the lovely Kristen Breitweiser of New Jersey, whose husband died in the south tower. "I am enormously grateful for that." She and other widows left the hearing room to protest Condoleezza Rice's lame no-show.
If only Sandy Berger had told the incoming Bush officials that al Qaeda was no big deal, they might have gotten alarmed about it. They were determined to disdain all things Clinton, including what they considered his overemphasis on terrorism.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al., were on amber alert, "preserved in amber," as Clarke put it, obsessing on old GOP issues that had been hot when they were last in power, like a menacing Saddam Hussein and a Star Wars missile shield to protect America from the awesome might of the Evil Empire.
Terrorism wasn't really their cup of tea anyhow.
As Clarke writes, the ascension of al Qaeda and the devolution of Iraq were topics that called for nuance: "Bush and his inner circle had no real interest in complicated analyses; on the issues that they cared about, they already knew the answers, it was received wisdom."
The Bush crew was thinking big, and Osama bin Laden seemed puny to them.
Rumsfeld told the Sept. 11 panel that there had been no point retaliating for the Cole bombing in October 2000, "four months after the fact," because that might have sent a signal of weakness.
So it was too late to whack bin Laden four months later, but not too late to re-whack Hussein 12 years later?
As he admitted to the commission on Tuesday, the defense secretary didn't like the idea of going after bin Laden in Afghanistan because "it didn't have a lot of targets." You just ended up bombing rocks instead of palaces. "Afghanistan was something like 8,000 miles from the United States. You can pound the rubble in an al Qaeda training camp 15 times and not do much damage; they can put tents right back up."
So, not showy and not convenient? Crummy excuses, Rummy.
Paul Wolfowitz was completely uninterested in al Qaeda unless he could use it as a rationale to invade Iraq as part of his grandiose dream to remake the Middle East in his image. (And John Ashcroft was just too busy covering up immodest statues and trying to cut counterterrorism funds.)
In the Clarke book, Wolfowitz fidgets at a meeting in April 2001 as Clarke urges that armed Predators target bin Laden. "Well," Wolfie whines, "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden."
Besides confirming what we already knew -- that national security in this White House has been as ideologically driven as the domestic agenda -- the Clarke book and the commission hearings are most chilling in describing how clueless the agencies charged with sorting through clues were under Clinton and Bush.
Reprising the scene in the White House on Sept. 11, Clarke says Dale Watson, the FBI's counterterrorism chief, called him. "We got the passenger manifests from the airlines," Watson said. "We recognize some names, Dick. They're al Qaeda."
Clarke recalled: "I was stunned, not that the attack was al Qaeda but that there were al Qaeda operatives on board aircraft using names that FBI knew were al Qaeda."
Watson told Clarke that "CIA forgot to tell us about them."
Clarke's argument that the Bush team's misguided adventurism in Iraq has actually spawned more terrorism and diverted resources has panicked the Bushies, who are running as heroic terror warriors.
It's always gross to see a White House stoop to smearing the character of someone seen as a threat. It was sickening when the Clinton White House smeared Monica Lewinsky, and it's sickening now.
Page E - 5
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/28/EDGLV5RE6I1.DTL
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
New York Times Service
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Washington -- AS THE WHITE HOUSE was sliming Richard Clarke, the Sept. 11 families were stroking him.
Several relatives of victims surrounded the former counterterrorism chief after his testimony Wednesday and reached out to pat him. After being condescended to, stonewalled, led on and put off by the White House, they were glad to hear somebody say: "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you."
"Mr. Clarke is the first person who has apologized to the families and held himself accountable," said the lovely Kristen Breitweiser of New Jersey, whose husband died in the south tower. "I am enormously grateful for that." She and other widows left the hearing room to protest Condoleezza Rice's lame no-show.
If only Sandy Berger had told the incoming Bush officials that al Qaeda was no big deal, they might have gotten alarmed about it. They were determined to disdain all things Clinton, including what they considered his overemphasis on terrorism.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al., were on amber alert, "preserved in amber," as Clarke put it, obsessing on old GOP issues that had been hot when they were last in power, like a menacing Saddam Hussein and a Star Wars missile shield to protect America from the awesome might of the Evil Empire.
Terrorism wasn't really their cup of tea anyhow.
As Clarke writes, the ascension of al Qaeda and the devolution of Iraq were topics that called for nuance: "Bush and his inner circle had no real interest in complicated analyses; on the issues that they cared about, they already knew the answers, it was received wisdom."
The Bush crew was thinking big, and Osama bin Laden seemed puny to them.
Rumsfeld told the Sept. 11 panel that there had been no point retaliating for the Cole bombing in October 2000, "four months after the fact," because that might have sent a signal of weakness.
So it was too late to whack bin Laden four months later, but not too late to re-whack Hussein 12 years later?
As he admitted to the commission on Tuesday, the defense secretary didn't like the idea of going after bin Laden in Afghanistan because "it didn't have a lot of targets." You just ended up bombing rocks instead of palaces. "Afghanistan was something like 8,000 miles from the United States. You can pound the rubble in an al Qaeda training camp 15 times and not do much damage; they can put tents right back up."
So, not showy and not convenient? Crummy excuses, Rummy.
Paul Wolfowitz was completely uninterested in al Qaeda unless he could use it as a rationale to invade Iraq as part of his grandiose dream to remake the Middle East in his image. (And John Ashcroft was just too busy covering up immodest statues and trying to cut counterterrorism funds.)
In the Clarke book, Wolfowitz fidgets at a meeting in April 2001 as Clarke urges that armed Predators target bin Laden. "Well," Wolfie whines, "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden."
Besides confirming what we already knew -- that national security in this White House has been as ideologically driven as the domestic agenda -- the Clarke book and the commission hearings are most chilling in describing how clueless the agencies charged with sorting through clues were under Clinton and Bush.
Reprising the scene in the White House on Sept. 11, Clarke says Dale Watson, the FBI's counterterrorism chief, called him. "We got the passenger manifests from the airlines," Watson said. "We recognize some names, Dick. They're al Qaeda."
Clarke recalled: "I was stunned, not that the attack was al Qaeda but that there were al Qaeda operatives on board aircraft using names that FBI knew were al Qaeda."
Watson told Clarke that "CIA forgot to tell us about them."
Clarke's argument that the Bush team's misguided adventurism in Iraq has actually spawned more terrorism and diverted resources has panicked the Bushies, who are running as heroic terror warriors.
It's always gross to see a White House stoop to smearing the character of someone seen as a threat. It was sickening when the Clinton White House smeared Monica Lewinsky, and it's sickening now.
Page E - 5
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/28/EDGLV5RE6I1.DTL
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Milton Frihetsson, 07:37
