|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Dear Mr. Friedman Input: Axis of Appeasement Out... Shopping I stopped by Target the other night. I n... Lets talk about music a little I'm tired of ... Crumbling Down, The walls.. crumbling crumblin' C... God is Gravity Think about it... I can feel HIS ... Worms This is my update. Spanish Lies Orcinus Wow... you know that popula... Things We Might Overlook apples earthworms Bill F... The Heavens (1280 x 960 version suitable for d... Arrogance Chalmers Johnson, Author of "The Sorrow... Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
3.24.2004
Clark before the commission Richard Clark is testifying before the 9-11 commission which is airing on NPR. The attacks against him are coming in the form of questions to his credibility regarding the difference in tone and content between a previous Press Background Briefing and his latest book. The "aha!" smoking gun seems to be that during Clark's tenure in the Bush Administration he provided a much rosier picture of events surrounding the transition between the Clinton and the Bush Administrations regarding terrorism than he does in his book. This is somehow seen as a smear on his character. Important to remember is that as a member of the Bush Administration, as with any other administration, Clark was acting as a spokesman. He does not have the mandate or the liberty to interject his own personal feelings while acting as a member of an administration. Such as you would be remiss in putting forth your own opinions while acting as a employee of a business. You would be right to ask whether an employee has a responsibility to speak the truth even when speaking for someone else. You would also be right to point out that people working in our government have a responsibility to the American people for whom they work to speak the truth to the press, and through that conduit, to its citizens. But should an administration spokesman go before the press and stray from the administration's talking points they would be seen as disloyal and untrustworthy. They would risk not only their job but the ability to do their work with cooperation from their superiors. If, however they go before the press and speak in disingenuous or even untruthful ways they do a disservice to us. Its a moral dilemma. Its telling that the Bush administration is using this background briefing, which is essentially their own words to try to discredit Clark. The Whitehouse has just released this background briefing in what is yet another attempt to smear any whistleblower that comes out and criticizes the President. Its a pattern we should all notice. The other line of attack on Clark is to draw a connection between his book and the Kerry Campaign. They do this by highlighting the closeness of Clark to Rand Beers, who does indeed work for Kerry. The two men, Clark and Beers are both former terrorism experts that worked under Bush. They now teach together at the Kennedy School. It is implied that Clark, through Beers is looking to position himself for a job in the Kerry Presidency. Today, before the commission and under oath Clark said that he would not take a position with Kerry even if it was offered. More noteworthy is the close comparisons between both Beers and Clark. Both were longtime experts who served as civil servants under both Republican and Democratic Administrations who both left the Bush administration citing lack of support for fighting terrorism. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo makes this point in a very succinct manner: And the pattern suggests two possible theories. I would recommend Marshall as a more definitive source on the Clark Issue. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
