Jan Ireland
March 28, 2004
Democrats count on Republicans not confronting Richard Clarke lies
By Jan Ireland

Democrats have come to expect that Republicans will "wimp out" in directly confronting lies and obfuscations.

Richard Clarke, nominal Republican but Democrat financial contributor over the years, likely expected the Bush Administration would follow that same course, since he had the backing of congressional Democrats and the media giant Viacom.

He probably expected the mainstream media to echo the Leslie Stahl puffery from CBS's 60 Minutes, without any bothersome questions or investigations of his claims. Even the MSN homepage had a link to "Best Parts of Richard Clarke's Book" the other day, with apparently no concern at all about confirming.

Clarke is being hawked by Democrats as a Republican, a four administration diplomat, and a whistleblower suffering attempted character assassination for exposing the truth.

But all this is just another set of lies Democrats are counting on Republicans not to confront.

Democrats were able to prevail in the "It's just about sex!" defense of the impeached Clinton's perjury though perjury is a crime. When Republicans failed in their responsibility to find Clinton guilty, despite the lie under oath repeating on tape over and over, they set a benchmark.

Assault the truth in a bold, daring, caustic and unrelenting way and Republicans will back down. The mainstream media, rarely reticent to publicize a negative about conservatives, has gone along with it many times since.

Their strategy was evident in Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Democrats Tom Daschle, Robert Leahy, and Chuck Schumer use it in the blatantly unconstitutional filibustering of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees still today. And Democrat apologist Ellen Ratner uses it to refute Clarke's earlier unabashed praise for Bush's handling of 9-11, both in recorded tapes and in written letters.

Ratner dismisses the erstwhile praise (pre-book release of course) as Washington spin. Ratner has Clarke simply pitching obligated lying then, but swears he is this time telling the truth now that millions of dollars, a spot in a Kerry presidency to salve his ego, and possible damage to George Bush are at stake.

She tries again with the "slippery slope of declassifying" when the issue of the White House releasing several hours of the tapes of Clarke praising Bush effusively and deriding Clinton for inaction comes up. Ratner must not know that "things" are declassified when there simply is no longer a need for them to be classified.

Truth always exposes duplicity, as in a simple question to Clarke.

Why, if Clarke saw George Bush and Condoleeza Rice putting the American people at risk by their ineptitude, did he not call an immediate press conference and announce their inadequacies to the world?

But even more damning is his profit motive, and the fawning apology.

Clarke took several months to write a draft, edit the draft, submit the draft, reedit the draft, finalize the galleys, talk with the publisher about release dates, and talk with the publisher about moving up the release date all to coincide with his public testimony at the 9-11 Commission and a dramatic opening for his dreamed-of blockbuster.

Obvious, too, is that he took time to get poor coaching about how to deliver the "apology" on behalf of the Administration. (Isn't that, by the way, an act akin to making a treaty with a foreign nation on your own purporting to speak for the government?)

But here is where the user is used. By also blaming himself, no doubt as he was coached, he puts himself squarely in the hotseat. Hoping to appear magnanimous, he simply appears ... witless.

After all, if Bush and Rice were too inept to prevent 9-11, though Clarke tried mightily to get them to see the error of their ways, wouldn't it follow that ... Clarke himself ... would be the one to blame for 9-11?

Clarke seems not so abjectly sorry as to be unable to promote the book, nor so abjectly sorry as to decline to take money for the book. Apparently in Clarke's mind, his apology is payment in full to the victims' families.

He is just another venal, narcissistic personality, being used by Democrats who hope that Republicans will be too disorganized to confront the lies.

Not this time.

In this war on terror, America's very survival depends on confronting Democrat lies. Richard Clarke's are just the most current in a very long line.

© Jan Ireland


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)


Alan Keyes
'A Bucket Brigade': The most simple, feasible way to take back America!

Stephen Stone
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress?

Madeline Crabb
Open letter to Democratic congressmen and Congressional Black Caucus

Bryan Fischer
Either pro-gay Jeb is toast in 2016 or the GOP is

Ellis Washington
On Immanuel Kant and reasoning God out of existence

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Lines of nominal Christian and genuine Christian less blurred

Tom O'Toole
Fr. Theodore M. Hesburgh (1917-2015) dies, pray for his soul

Curtis Dahlgren
The War on Dissent: Fibs, spin, statistics, and pure fiction

Michael Bresciani
Will liberal louses loose the fateful lightning -- using rights to do wrong

A.J. Castellitto
Rape by deception and other "health" lessons....

Donald Hank
Boris Nemtsov's murder -- who dunnit?

Toby Westerman
Murder incorporated in the Kremlin

Tom O'Toole
Charles E. Rice 1931-2015: a real Notre Dame man

Bryan Fischer
The "gay disease" about to get very expensive for taxpayers
  More columns


Michael Ramirez

RSS feeds



Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites