More attacks on Clarke
Reported: We need a good graphic of George II morphing into Richard Nixon.
| Permalink | technorati
« Guest Blogging at GlennReynolds.com | Main | "It's Simple" says the MANes »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1231
Comments (18)
Stupid posts like these completely ruin your credability. Bush hasn't "attacked" Clarke. People are merely pointing out differences between what he says now and what he said then. Clarke is an obvious partisan who says nothing but good things about Clinton and nothing but bad things about Bush.
This does feel as if I'm coming into a conversation that's already in progress, and I'm not quite understanding the dynamic (either of the conversation, or of blogging -- to which I'm a newcomer). But it doesn't seem as if the "more comments on Clarke" response relates to the "we need a good graphic" original post.
As a non-American, but long-time (taxation without representation) American resident, might I say that it seems to me that the current electoral contest is entirely lacking in real choices? Kerry may differ from Bush in certain limited areas of specific policy, but there is no real conceptual differenence in orientation -- it's all just marginally left or marginally right of a very centrist, isolationist, U.S.-centric agenda.
Are there any legitimate third-party choices? Does Ralph need to be perceived as a spoiler, or does he have something legitimate to offer? It seems to me that this this is an important conversation, and one that warrants raising above the current "this is a stupid post" discourse.
- Hmm... the reason Clarke remains credible is that he is not an "obvious partisan" - the same goes for Lessig- and, unless I missed something major on the news, no one has yet shown that Clarke's allegations are unfounded. Miaow.
- Hmm... the reason Clarke remains credible is that he is not an "obvious partisan" - the same goes for Lessig- and, unless I missed something major on the news, no one has yet shown that Clarke's allegations are unfounded. Miaow.
Clarke said good things about Bush when that was his job. Just noting this before anyone accuses him of hypocricy. cracy. crasy. Aha, now I know why Republicans decided to just call it "waffling."
Whether having this opinion of the Bush administration damages Professor Lessig's credibility is largely a matter of personal perspective. It certainly seems odd to argue that he shouldn't be making comments like this on his own weblog. He's is entitled to have and express whatever political opinions he has, and we, his readers, can decide for ourselves what that means to his credibility.
That aside, I'm not sure what subset of the hearings you were listening to, but Clarke seemed to be critical of both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. It was clear he felt that terrorism was an issue which presented increasing in threat, and was not getting adequate attention from either administration. He also did something that the Bush administration has not done: apologize for his own failures and those of his agency in their duty to protect the lives of American citizens. It's far from clear to me how he can be labelled as partisan: if anything, the Bush administration's response (against his character rather than the substance of his claims) make it seem that they are more deserving of that particular label.
uh, did any of you actually READ the linked article?
April fools, perhaps?
Hey read much?:
You hit the nail on the head...if you read the article it definitely is an April Fool's joke. This makes Lawrence's statement either foolish or sarcastic....I'm hoping for sarcastic.
As to Clarke, a key thing to me is his character which he has called into question by coming out with scathing, damning remarks of the administration (more than Clinton's by the way) after having praised them just two years ago. His explanation was that he was a member of the staff and had to toe the line....here is my take on it...
1. Many of his statements in 2002 were of FACT, not opinion...so he is either lying now or then.
2. If he did lie about how he really felt about the state of the administrations anti-terrorism efforts to save his job, then he is a moral coward and again you can't trust what he is saying. He basically admitted he put his job and salary above the safety of the American public. Did he apologize for that?
He is basically a frustrated bureaucrat looking for someone to blame for everything. His apology was theatrics and grandstanding.
It is a sad statement that the 9/11 commission can't just look for the facts so we can improve things. It has become a tool in the war to end the war on terror (ie. the enemy is us, not the terrorists).
Fundamentally, nobody was prepared for 9/11 and even if a leader at any level was prepared, the public would have not allowed the actions necessary to quelch it. It was a turning point in history that opened a lot of peoples' eyes - too many closed them again.
I just have to point out here that anyone who knows Larry Lessig even a little (I am a former student of his, so that's about what I can claim) knows that he is far from a knee-jerk liberal or Democrat. It's clear he doesn't think much of Bush, but a lot of smart, conservative (in the true sense of that word) Republicans feel the same way. I'm not saying Larry is a Republican (though he once was, a Young Republican, I believe) or even a conservative, but his feelings about Bush don't necessarily reflect liberal Democratic political leanings either. When I knew him at the University of Chicago I would have been very surprised to hear him accused of being a bleeding-heart.
hey, team, lighten up. the article I linked to was a joke april fools article. and it was in the theme of that article I was suggesting another with a graphic.
"Clarke said good things about Bush when that was his job."
No.
When specifically instructed by his superiors to give a positive assessment of the Bush administration's actions regarding terrorism at a press briefing, he did so.
As to his congressional testimony, he specifically said that the administration was engaged in its first 11 months.
911 occurred on month 7.
Translation: "They paid attention AFTER 911."
Then you have them trying to out Clarke as gay via CNN and Blitzer, and you have a quote from a book saying essentially that the Iraq policy was so stupid that it could have been written by Osama (using a common literary metaphor), and it's cast as "Osama can use his alien mind control powers."
If these folks had said something to the effect of, "Clarke is a guy with a hammer, so everything looks like a nail, and he did not get the big picture," this would all be over now.
They can't because they believe that they have something like Papal infallibility.
Look at the s***storm stirred up from Letterman showing a kid nodding off during one of Shrub's speeches.
No sense of proportion. Any criticism is an attack on America.
Alan:
[you said] "Many of his statements in 2002 were of FACT, not opinion…so he is either lying now or then."
I'm not so inclined to agree given that: (1) Pat Buchanan (a Nixonian republican) has backed up Clarke's statements then and now; and (2) Clarke himself has called Bill Frist's bluff to "open the record" and said: fine! open it all. let everyone look at my record.
This doesn't sound like a liar to me. And it certainly looks a hell of a lot better than an administration that won't let its NSC advisor testify "under oath." What good is Condi's testimony if she can lie with impugnity. Richarde Clarke testified under oath to congress. If he lied in his testimony, he's committed multiple felonies -- an not just perjury. Lying to congress is a felony all by itself.
MRL:
My main data point included a statement to the effect that the Bush administration was spending 5x as much as the Clinton administration on anti-terrorist activities in 2002.
Perhaps you can clarify - when Condileeza Rice testified in private to the commission - wasn't that under oath? I think it was but I'm open to learning different.
Matthew:
Let me ask you what your assessment of a person is who was charged with such a serious responsibility as leading our fight against terror who would mislead the public. Spin is one thing but his statements are far beyond spin. If he didn't believe them, then what kind of person is he - ie. willingly misleading the public on such an important issue. Doesn't it seem a little worriesome to you? This is not a salesperson saying a product is a bit better than it really is - this is someone who literally had the lives of hundreds of millions of people in his hands. It is a sad comment on society that his excuse (I was told to say that) did not lead to the deep questioning of his character.
I'm not happy with many of the administration's recent responses - I think it is a sign of worry over the stakes being played out.
Lawrence:
Free Culture is a great read - I have to digest your ideas for a while but as always you argue well from both a principle and factual basis. I'm glad my hope on this post was well placed...and I apologize for questioning you on something sooooo obvious.
You have a lot of passionate readers obviously (this one not excluded).
Lessig is almost right. What we really need is a picture of Nixon morphing into GWB.
much better!
The Sludge Report has a 'Bush Morphing into Nixon Photo':
http://sludgereport.blogspot.com/
...and much more.
do it yourself legal kits at discount prices from Do it yourself legal kits
Uhh ... don't you mean George III? There was another president named George, a log time ago. Lots of things used to be named after him. (Posted from Reagan, DC)