Random Musings
Monday, March 22, 2004
CNN.com - Bush administration rejects´┐ŻClarke charges - Mar 22, 2004 Some administration officials questioned Clarke's motives, suggesting he had a partisan agenda. Clarke has served under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Step 1: Discredit the accuser by claiming he is a Democrat and thus anything he says are just politically motivated lies.

In her interview with CNN, Rice pointed out repeatedly that Clarke was in charge of counterterrorism efforts in 1998 when U.S. embassies in Africa were bombed and in 2000 when the USS Cole was bombed, as well as during "a period of the '90s when al Qaeda was strengthening and when the plots that ended up in September 11th were being hatched." She said Clarke holds a more "narrow view" of combating terrorism than Bush does.

Step 2: Imply that the accuser is just as guilty, if not moreso, and thus somehow hypocritical for accusing.

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the
election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.

Step 3 (see Step 1): Accuse the accuser of having ulterior motives.

The answer to McClellan's rhetorical question is rather obvious: Because Mr. Clarke wants to sell a lot of books and during election season people are interested in this stuff. By next March only the extremists will care about this subject. Of course, that doesn't mean his story is false.


Comments: Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger
Technorati Profile