Carpe Datum

Suddenly Credible?

Richard Clarke Has Been Credible All Along

The Poor Man is confused, and I share his confusion. We wonder why conservatives are so darned concerned over lies, misleading distortions or other inaccuracies in Michael Moore's movie (which I still haven't found time to see, dangit). I mean, from what I've heard, Moore had some sharp and horribly mean words for our president, and he just might have stretched the truth here and there. I guess I can understand why *those* things are so troubling to patriotic conservatives.

But why do the lies from our president get a free pass? Where's the outrage, conservatives? What will we tell the children?

He has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells. He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC. He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about his deficit spending, and now my wrist hurts.

Oh well, I guess what really matters is that John Kerry's wife is really rich or that apprarently, Bill Clinton mentions himself an awful lot in his autobiography. All this stuff about torture, alienating our allies, the lies and (oh protect my virgin eyes) the misleading distortions about Iraq and Al Qaeda ... you know, all that stuff. It just doesn't matter.

The favorite conservative talking point I've run across on "Fahrenheit 9/11" is this idea that Richard Clarke, the same guy who resigned (like so many others) from the Bush administration and wrote a harsh critique of their total lack of preparedness for 9/11, etc -- this same Richard Clarke has supposedly discredited Moore's implication that members of Osama's family were allowed to escape FBI interrogation and/or leave the country before anyone else could fly. Moore didn't outright assert this, so he can lawyer his way out of it, but I agree that it sounds misleading from reading the transcript.

What did Clarke actually say? Does it matter to conservatives? Nope, but Bob Somerby has the details of what he's found on Clarke's statements. Clarke seems to say at one point that he personally approved of getting the bin Laden's out of the country, but then later, it isn't so clear that's what he meant, etc. At any rate, the actual truth is somewhat complicated, but conservatives are hammering at home as a black-and-white "Moore can't be trusted" point. While at the same time ignoring outright lies like the ones above from Bush himself.

Of course, it is nice to see conservatives granting some credibility to Clarke now. These are the same conservatives who totally ran Clarke down six months ago, saying he was an idiot with an axe to grind, couldn't be trusted, etc. Oh, but now that Clarke can be used to partially kinda-sorta rebut something that Moore may be implying? Well, now he's the conquering hero of truth, justice and the American way, right? Apparently, Clarke has credibility when it is convenient for Bush-supporters.

The hard truth is that he's been credible all along, and cynical Bush-supporters know it. So who is really being dishonest here?

Posted by Observer at July 1, 2004 06:58 AM