Posted on 03/29/2004 2:55:29 PM PST by Lando Lincoln
Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 29 March 2004
Drooling at the prospect that President Bush could be seriously wound by Richard Clarke’s outlandish posturing and outrageous lying, Roy Eccleston gleefully told readers that “Clarke’s book Against All Enemies — Inside America’s War on Terror is the first detailed inside assessment of the Bush team's handling of the terrorist threat, and its conclusions provide Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry with new ammunition for his claims that Bush has made the US less safe by going to war against Iraq.” (US 9/11 chief puts a bomb under Bush Rupert Murdoch’s Australian 24 March).
What Eccleston didn’t tell us is that Clarke’s allegations have been successfully refuted and the man exposed as a partisan liar.
The following day the intrepid and Eccleston was at it again (We couldn't stop 9/11: Rumsfeld). This time he quoted Jamie Gorelick, neglecting to mention that he is a deeply partisan Democrat, as claiming that Bush had information that "would set your hair on fire". Strangely enough Eccleston was unable to tell us what this information was. Being an honest journalist completely dedicated to the truth, he didn’t see any reason to explore the matter further. I guess the word of a Democrat, meaning any Bush-hating Democrat, is good enough for him.
To undermine administration arguments Eccleston once again turned to Clarke who argued that Bush was not aggressive enough. Excuse me, Mr Eccleston, it was only a short time ago that Bush was being called “too aggressive” and a “cowboy”. Now his opponents, with the help of their media hand-puppets, have done a 180 degree turn.
The man who “rushed into war” is now a pussy cat. If Republicans had tried to pull a similar strokes the likes of Eccleston would have poured scorn and ridicule on them. Yet the Democrats are once again given a free pass by our bigoted journalists.
In an effort to whitewash Clinton’s do-nothing approach to terrorism Eccleston claim that CIA chief Tenet had stopped several missile attacks on bin in the belief “that the intelligence was inadequate”. In other words, it was tenet’s fault that bin Laden was not killed, not Clinton’s or Clarke’s. With this lot and their media pals, it’s always someone else’s fault.
But Mansoor Ijaz, a former Clinton administration official, revealed that Clarke actually blocked efforts to have bin Laden extradited from the Sudan. Mansoor publicly stated:
“In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again”.
Clinton later admitted that he turned down an offer by the Sudan to have bin Laden arrested, despite Clarke claiming in his book that no such offer was made. Mansoor and Clinton’s statements are a damning indictment of Clarke and his book. No wonder Mansoor publicly called Clarke a liar and challenged him to a confrontation.
Even more damning for Clinton and Clarke is an account by Gary Schroen that contradicts Clinton’s claim that he ordered the CIA to kill bin Laden whenever they got the opportunity. Schroen, former CIA station chief in Pakistan, stated that Clinton wanted bin Laden captured and not killed. Someone is obviously lying. Now I wonder who it could be?
Curiously enough all of these fact managed to escape the attention of Eccleston, who continues to write as if Clarke’s words came down from Mount Sinai. It seems that as far as Eccleston is concerned, only the views of certain Clinton officials are worth reporting. Now why would that be, I wonder?
Unfortunately, Eccleston is not alone in his bigotry. Marian Wilkinson, Washington correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald, aka The Saddam Times is no better. She breathlessly told us that Clarke’s “charges against Bush and his national security team are little short of devastating” (Revelations strike to the heart of Bush Administration 24 March).
Notice how Wilkinson unquestionably accepted as true all of Clarke’s accusations. With obvious relish, she repeated Clarke’s charge the Bush “failed to act before September 11 on the threat from al-Qaeda, ‘despite repeated warnings’.
However, if Clarke was so disgusted with Bush then why, in his January 2003 resignation letter, did he heavily praised Bush for his “courage, determination, calm and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th”?
Bursting with admiration for the lying Clarke, Wilkinson called him “a skilled political infighter. He released his account the week that the independent commission of inquiry on the September 11…”
Complete rubbish. Clarke’s book was due for release in late April but Simon & Schuster, the crew who advanced Hillary US$8, hurriedly brought it forward. And who owns this publishing company? Why CBSNEWS which is owned by Viacom whose head, Sumner Redstone, is a large political donor to the Clintons. Gee, what a coincidence. Yet Wilkinson, who fancies herself as a journalist, was unable to connect the dots. Is that perhaps because they all led to the Democrats?
Pay particular care to Wilkinson’s “repeated warnings” quote. This is a vicious attempt to mislead people into thinking that Bush had prior warning of the 9-11 atrocity but didn’t act. This is a truly vile accusation.
Now Fox News released an embarrassing tape of Clarke stating: “The Bush administration decided ... mid-January [2001] to ... vigorously pursue the existing [Clinton] policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings ... to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. ...”
This single statement exposes Clarke’s contradictions and reveals him to be a liar. But Eccleston and Wilkinson ignored it, just as they ignored the fact that Clarke’s testimony to a closed Congressional committee directly contradicts his statements to the 9-11 commission, further demonstrating the man’s gross dishonesty — and that of his media supporters. It also raises the distinct possibility that he is guilty of perjury.
Proving herself to be every bit as slimy as Eccleston, Wilkinson said that Condoleezza Rice “has only met them [commissioners] in private, after legal advice from the White House not to testify publicly”. Wilkinson is insinuating that Rice refuses to appear in front of the commission because she has something to hide (Ex-Bush adviser puts heat on Rice 26 March).
What Wilkinson left out was the fact that National Security Council directors don't testify in public, only behind closed doors. So Wilkinson takes a standard practice and viciously moulds it into a baseless attack on an honourable and deeply patriotic woman. You can bet your last dollar that the lefty Wilkinson would never pull a despicable stroke like that on a Democrat, especially if they were black.
It really is sickening. Lying leftwing journalists are now attacking Bush for not doing in eight months what the Clinton administration didn’t do in eight years — and that includes Clarke, who was Clinton’s anti-terror Czar. Another fact that lefty journalists playdown or ignore.
Note: The media’s scandalous cover up of Clarke’s lying and their collusion with Democrats will be dealt with in much greater detail in another article. It goes without saying that Mr and Mrs Integrity will feature in it. Although in fairness to this pair of political bigots, their writings are characteristic of what passes for journalism today.
It will interest Rupert Murdoch fans among our American readers that his Australian is now publishing extracts from Clarke’s book. No debate, no questions, just Clarke’s lies.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes’ economics editor
This is a dream of mine....liberal left media all go bankrupt....middle America takes over
Congressman Billybob
It isn't necessary to read past the title.
It says it all, America.
Did anyone see him deny wanting the Homeland Security job, although he admitted to being interviewed for the job?
He really displayed lunacy when he held up a sloppy post card goodbye from President Bush that was embarrassing for someone who worked in the White House for 12 years or more. Yet he bragged "this is not the ordinary goodbye you get." It was embarrassing - for him.
Clarke desperately is trying to get out his real message - that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans, including Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice & Bush, don't agree with him on that.
He took credit for every anti-terrorism act of the Bush administration and claimed the Administration and especially Rice deserve no credit. How does he figure?
He claims he's going to donate to the 9-11 families but of course can't say how much and has to keep most of the money because the vile Bush White House will destroy his career.
His proudest achievement was being insubordinate on 9-12 and refusing the President's order to investigate whether the attacks had any link to Iraq. Mr. know it all just knew it was Al Queda with no other involvement. Even the Washington Post says Clarke was off base.
There's the little matter of leaving a sensitive White House position in time of war and writing a "tell all" book about private national security conversations.
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz want to hit Iraq on 9-12. Bush asks CLARKE to investigate if there was any Iraq link. A guy known to aggressively dispute the existence of any such link. Now, why would Clarke object to being given that assignment, when it left Clarke in control of the result??
And finally, why does Clarke never emphasize the result of his investigation? I assume Clarke found no link, and Bush moved against Afghanistan, not Iraq. The Iraq war was never justified based on a 9-11 link. So Clarke's problem with that is exactly what?
He just RETIRED after 30 years of government employment. He gets retirement benefits. His career is over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.