Friday, March 26, 2004
The Farce
Despite our optimism that the testimony of Richard Clarke would finally bust open the Bush administration's cabal of secrecy regarding what they knew about possible terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, certain realities suggest to us that darkness may yet triumph.
1. The pathetic partisanship of the Republican members of the 9/11 commission -- especially that of John F. Lehman. That he, and Former Governor James R. Thompson, would use their forum on the commission to pursue the White House's agenda of character assassination against Clarke and blame-shifting to Bill Clinton rather than address known facts of the Bush administration's incompetence, suggests a level of cynicism almost beyond comprehension.
Undoubtedly history will not be kind to either Lehman or Thompson. But in the meantime we are left listening to Lehman argue, repeatedly, that blame for 9/11 should be placed on the Clinton administration because they did not retaliate for the the bombing of the Cole after getting a preliminary suggestion from the CIA, in November of 2000, that al Qaeda may have been responsible. Nevermind that two months later, in January, 2001 -- when Bush was president -- the CIA formally assigned blame to al Qaeda, and that Bush never retaliated. It's Clinton's fault for not reacting to the November "preliminary" finding.
Can you imagine what Republicans -- like Lehman -- would have done if he had? With two months left in office? And no official assignation of blame from the CIA?
Lehman also pretends to be confused that Clarke's testimony before the commission "differs" from what he gave before the Congressional 9/11 committee. Of course, Lehman, like everyone in Washington, knows that for the Republican-controlled Congressional committee Clarke answered the questions he was asked, many of which were -- surprise! -- about Clinton. He was not asked about Iraq. He was not asked what Condoleezza Rice knew and when she knew it. He was not asked how many times he "urgently" tried to get Rice to pay attention to al Qaeda.
The testimony he gave before the Republican congressional committee followed the questions he was asked, and the questions followed a GOP script. He was not allowed to testify to the whole truth. This is the reason he wrote his book. It's one of the reasons truth-minded people knew there needed to be an independent commission. And it's the main reason the Bush administration opposed one.
Meanwhile Governor Thompson pretends to be shocked that Clarke, acting as a member of the Bush administration, would follow orders and put positive spin on its performance against terrorism, even as he takes as gospel CIA Director George Tenet's outrageous dissembling and lies.
Does anyone on earth really believe Tenet when he says the CIA didn't "understand" the Clinton White House' directive to kill bin Laden? What's not to understand? What of the classified documents Sandy Berger referred to that make this directive unambiguous? If there really was a "misunderstanding", wouldn't one call from the Director to the White House clear it up?
Why has no one on the commission asked Tenet that? It's simple enough: "If the CIA was confused about the White House directive to kill bin Laden, why didn't you ask for clarification?"
2. The media coverage of the commission has been horribly garbled. 201k watched CNN, and if they are the standard, then the truth is in jeopardy. Anyone who watched the hearings and then CNN's coverage will surely come to the same conclusion.
Beginning with GOP mole Wolf Blitzer's post-testimony coverage on Wednesday, CNN pursued a policy that can only be described as pernicious. Immediately following the session, Blitzer "discussed" the entire day's events with a British "terrorism expert", and CNN's Dana Bash. The "expert's" only remarks were to essentially ignore all of Clarke's testimony and instead focus on the lame Republican talking points impugning his credibility. Dana Bash was then brought in to give "the White House's perspective", as if any more of that were needed.
Worse, in replaying video of Clarke's testimony, CNN freeze-framed Clarke's retort to Thompson in response the former governor's claim that he spoke "untruths" on behalf of the Bush administration. This freezing, which CNN repeated throughout the day, had two effects: it created the false impression that Clarke's remark was a smug admission of duplicity, instead of an excellent rejoiner to Thompson's shameless demagoguery, and more importantly, it eliminated the audience's very positive response.
And CNN stayed away entirely from Clarke's later devastating dismissal of Thompson's charge, which elicited a spontaneous burst of loud applause in the audience. CNN, apparently, does not want its viewers to know just how effective Clarke was, and how much support he had. They prefer to present a "balanced view" of the testimony, which is to say, they want to give equal credence to ridiculous Republican propaganda and ass-covering as to legitimate, factual testimony. We can only imagine what is going on over at Faux News.
Meanwhile, the administration's official news outlet, PBS' The NewsHour, provided Donald Rumsfeld a forum on Thursday, and will have Colin Powell on tonight. Perhaps Rice will be next, or maybe Richard Nixon.
Oddly, prior to airing a Margaret Warner interview with Howard Dean, Jim Lehrer felt the need to point out to viewers that the interview was taped before the NewsHours' interview with Rumsfeld. Why, you ask, was this necessary? How could anything Rumsfeld have said impact the Dean interview? You had to watch to find out.
Dean, in the course of his interview, criticized the Bush administrations' prosecution of the war on terror. Specifically, he cited Clarke's testimony that taking the war to Iraq had weakened the country's fight against terrorism. So what had this to do with Rumsfeld? Why did Jim Lehrer need to tell viewers that Dean was speaking before Rumsfeld had? What had Rumsfeld said that somehow undermined Dean's remarks?
Rumsfeld said that the war in Iraq was in fact a proper venue for the war on terror.
Oh.
No proof, no evidence, just a flat statement from the man who said he "knew" where the WMD were. But that was good enough for Lehrer, and worth a disclaimer before the Dean interview.
Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice continues to be given an unquestioning forum on TV to call Richard Clarke every name in the book without having to provide any proof. And when she returns, under duress, to testify in front of the commission, she will not have to be under oath. Hmmm.
Here's the ugly reality that the media has failed, and will likely continue to fail, to make clear to the public: in the months prior to 9/11 the FBI knew there were "foreign Arabs" taking flight lessons who were not interested in learning to land. The CIA knew that senior al Qaeda operatives had entered the country. Neither fact was relayed to the White House's chief terrorism official, who was nevertheless "urgently" requesting meetings with the National Security Advisor -- and was told to go through underlings.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration was pursuing the pre-conceived agenda of focusing on Iraq -- a strategy developed out of office in right-wing think tanks by the very same people who would eventually mislead the country into invading Iraq under false pretenses.
How much clearer could this be?
1. The pathetic partisanship of the Republican members of the 9/11 commission -- especially that of John F. Lehman. That he, and Former Governor James R. Thompson, would use their forum on the commission to pursue the White House's agenda of character assassination against Clarke and blame-shifting to Bill Clinton rather than address known facts of the Bush administration's incompetence, suggests a level of cynicism almost beyond comprehension.
Undoubtedly history will not be kind to either Lehman or Thompson. But in the meantime we are left listening to Lehman argue, repeatedly, that blame for 9/11 should be placed on the Clinton administration because they did not retaliate for the the bombing of the Cole after getting a preliminary suggestion from the CIA, in November of 2000, that al Qaeda may have been responsible. Nevermind that two months later, in January, 2001 -- when Bush was president -- the CIA formally assigned blame to al Qaeda, and that Bush never retaliated. It's Clinton's fault for not reacting to the November "preliminary" finding.
Can you imagine what Republicans -- like Lehman -- would have done if he had? With two months left in office? And no official assignation of blame from the CIA?
Lehman also pretends to be confused that Clarke's testimony before the commission "differs" from what he gave before the Congressional 9/11 committee. Of course, Lehman, like everyone in Washington, knows that for the Republican-controlled Congressional committee Clarke answered the questions he was asked, many of which were -- surprise! -- about Clinton. He was not asked about Iraq. He was not asked what Condoleezza Rice knew and when she knew it. He was not asked how many times he "urgently" tried to get Rice to pay attention to al Qaeda.
The testimony he gave before the Republican congressional committee followed the questions he was asked, and the questions followed a GOP script. He was not allowed to testify to the whole truth. This is the reason he wrote his book. It's one of the reasons truth-minded people knew there needed to be an independent commission. And it's the main reason the Bush administration opposed one.
Meanwhile Governor Thompson pretends to be shocked that Clarke, acting as a member of the Bush administration, would follow orders and put positive spin on its performance against terrorism, even as he takes as gospel CIA Director George Tenet's outrageous dissembling and lies.
Does anyone on earth really believe Tenet when he says the CIA didn't "understand" the Clinton White House' directive to kill bin Laden? What's not to understand? What of the classified documents Sandy Berger referred to that make this directive unambiguous? If there really was a "misunderstanding", wouldn't one call from the Director to the White House clear it up?
Why has no one on the commission asked Tenet that? It's simple enough: "If the CIA was confused about the White House directive to kill bin Laden, why didn't you ask for clarification?"
2. The media coverage of the commission has been horribly garbled. 201k watched CNN, and if they are the standard, then the truth is in jeopardy. Anyone who watched the hearings and then CNN's coverage will surely come to the same conclusion.
Beginning with GOP mole Wolf Blitzer's post-testimony coverage on Wednesday, CNN pursued a policy that can only be described as pernicious. Immediately following the session, Blitzer "discussed" the entire day's events with a British "terrorism expert", and CNN's Dana Bash. The "expert's" only remarks were to essentially ignore all of Clarke's testimony and instead focus on the lame Republican talking points impugning his credibility. Dana Bash was then brought in to give "the White House's perspective", as if any more of that were needed.
Worse, in replaying video of Clarke's testimony, CNN freeze-framed Clarke's retort to Thompson in response the former governor's claim that he spoke "untruths" on behalf of the Bush administration. This freezing, which CNN repeated throughout the day, had two effects: it created the false impression that Clarke's remark was a smug admission of duplicity, instead of an excellent rejoiner to Thompson's shameless demagoguery, and more importantly, it eliminated the audience's very positive response.
And CNN stayed away entirely from Clarke's later devastating dismissal of Thompson's charge, which elicited a spontaneous burst of loud applause in the audience. CNN, apparently, does not want its viewers to know just how effective Clarke was, and how much support he had. They prefer to present a "balanced view" of the testimony, which is to say, they want to give equal credence to ridiculous Republican propaganda and ass-covering as to legitimate, factual testimony. We can only imagine what is going on over at Faux News.
Meanwhile, the administration's official news outlet, PBS' The NewsHour, provided Donald Rumsfeld a forum on Thursday, and will have Colin Powell on tonight. Perhaps Rice will be next, or maybe Richard Nixon.
Oddly, prior to airing a Margaret Warner interview with Howard Dean, Jim Lehrer felt the need to point out to viewers that the interview was taped before the NewsHours' interview with Rumsfeld. Why, you ask, was this necessary? How could anything Rumsfeld have said impact the Dean interview? You had to watch to find out.
Dean, in the course of his interview, criticized the Bush administrations' prosecution of the war on terror. Specifically, he cited Clarke's testimony that taking the war to Iraq had weakened the country's fight against terrorism. So what had this to do with Rumsfeld? Why did Jim Lehrer need to tell viewers that Dean was speaking before Rumsfeld had? What had Rumsfeld said that somehow undermined Dean's remarks?
Rumsfeld said that the war in Iraq was in fact a proper venue for the war on terror.
Oh.
No proof, no evidence, just a flat statement from the man who said he "knew" where the WMD were. But that was good enough for Lehrer, and worth a disclaimer before the Dean interview.
Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice continues to be given an unquestioning forum on TV to call Richard Clarke every name in the book without having to provide any proof. And when she returns, under duress, to testify in front of the commission, she will not have to be under oath. Hmmm.
Here's the ugly reality that the media has failed, and will likely continue to fail, to make clear to the public: in the months prior to 9/11 the FBI knew there were "foreign Arabs" taking flight lessons who were not interested in learning to land. The CIA knew that senior al Qaeda operatives had entered the country. Neither fact was relayed to the White House's chief terrorism official, who was nevertheless "urgently" requesting meetings with the National Security Advisor -- and was told to go through underlings.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration was pursuing the pre-conceived agenda of focusing on Iraq -- a strategy developed out of office in right-wing think tanks by the very same people who would eventually mislead the country into invading Iraq under false pretenses.
How much clearer could this be?
