On Credibility

I've been reading the news articles regarding Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission and the various mewlings from Team Bush in response. Clarke said he expected to be attacked, and the slime hose is on full throttle--but the only folks who seem to be listening to this garbage are those who've been slaking their thirst ceaselessly with the packets of Kool Aid noted in the post below.

Bush even tried to get James Thompson to haul the water containers in his capacity as member of the commission, although he failed pretty miserably. Still, that hasn't stopped some from desperately pursuing the line that Clarke somehow was disengenuous, based on a background briefing he gave two years ago that Fox News decided to un-background as it were. Not to be outdone, Condolezza Rice declassifed an email Clarke sent her, effectively demonstrating that this administration has no problem placing politics above the national interest.

Rice, meanwhile, has been prevaricating in regards to her refusal to testify before the commission, saying it would "violate the separation of powers" or words to that effect. TalkingPointsMemo notes (and Billmon concurs) that MANY executive branch personnel have testified before legislative committees, including Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sandy Berger. Interestingly, there are five who REFUSED--and four of them served under Nixon at a time when Tricky Dick was singing his swan song.

But let's look a little more closely at those who are struggling and scrambling to question the credibility of Richard Clarke:

Rice: stressed that there was no way anyone could have predicted that terrorists would use hijacked planes as missiles and attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

That's simply not true.

Bush: where does one begin? The uranium canard, the WMD lie--which he jokes about now, even though close to 600 soldiers have been killed to generate a punch line for a correspondent's dinner--then there's his economic record which can be summarized as "put it on the credit card," his appalling handling of the Valerie Plame scandal, the cover-up, assisted by Christine Whitman, of the hazardous environmental conditions in Lower Manhattan after 9/11, his stonewalling of the commission itself--recall that he refuses to divulge the contents of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, even though the title indicated Al Qaeda was determined to strike in the United States. And this is merely a partial list.

Rove: Between his history of dirty politics and his own handling of the Plame scandal, Karl the Bald is a walking testimonial to right-wing sleaze.

Cheney: Saddam, Nukes, Halliburton--and he had the gall to say his wealth had nothing to do with the federal government (and Joe Lieberman, the idiot, let him get away with it).

Rumsfeld: Caught lying on national television.

One could easily find many more cases of Bush aides engaging in acts ranging from deception to straight out lying. To suggest that Clarke is somehow discredited because of one background brief and a now declassified email is a sign of desperation, pure and simple. It is the administration that has been thoroughly discredited. Clarke joins a growing list of people who publically have voiced their concern that Bush was more than willing to let his twin obsessions with tax cuts and Saddam Hussein trump EVERYTHING, including the real threat of terrorism and the real danger of economic decline. Bush is, quite honestly, unfit to be chief executive, and the people he surrounds himself with are equally unfit in this regard. Hell, Bush wouldn't be fit to be on "The Apprentice."

"Dubya--you're fired!"