Re: The artful dodger (#32686)
by Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on March 30, 2004 at 6:45 PM

1) “Accusing a President of not being sufficiently focused after an atrocity like 9/11 calls his competence into question.”

I don’t disagree. However, this charge is not unique to Clarke, nor is the accusation directed solely towards Bush.

2) “You say, "Clarke never explicitely blames Bush for 9/11, only saying that Bush did not find it urgent and should have taken more actions to prevent it."
A distinction without a difference and you know it.”

Of course, there is little practical difference, but there is a great deal of difference in tone. Conservatives blame Clinton explicitly for 9/11 (as well as everything else). Clarke says Bush did not do enough. They may mean the same thing, but they have very different accusatory implications.

3) “Calling Clarke a Republican misses the partisan point and you know it.”

Accusing Clarke of only giving to Democrats (which is true) only attacks the character of the person and not his credentials or charges and you know it. What about Woodward and O’Neil? Making partisan charges in order to paint your opponent a political hack may often be successful, but is suffers from the same petty tactics so many in Washington like to accuse the other side of doing.

4) “President Bush did not publicly admit that Iraq had no connection to 9/11, in fact he said Al Qaeda had many connections to Iraq. He said there was no evidence Saddam was directly connected to 9/11. Look it up. A distinction with a huge difference, and you know that too.”

Actually, the distinction makes very little difference in this context. Bush has no evidence that Canada is harboring aliens from the planet Mars, but saying it like that implies that it might be (and indeed it might). Why is it when Bush tells America that Iraq definitely has WMD, and it turns out to be untrue, his critics are accused of arguing petty semantics, and yet when he says no evidence exists to tie Iraq to 9/11, conservatives attack anyone who says that it means Iraq had no ties?

For the sake of argument, you are right, the two do not mean the same thing since you cannot prove a negative (except the administration leading up to war). I would remind you in that case to make sure that future attacks on Clarke or anyone else be carefully written to read “evidence suggests” unless you have incontrovertible evidence.

5) “What do you know about conservatives on AM radio? Do you listen often? If so, you must also be aware many of us also seriously fault Ronald Reagan for not responding to the Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks in '83.”

Actually, I do listen often and I have never heard Reagan criticized, although I will not deny it has happened. Michael Savage is the only one I have heard ever criticize Bush (for not standing up to the “liberal vermin in this country”). The rest simply spend all day doing two things: Criticizing liberal for being liars, traitors, enemies of the military, causers of 9/11, lovers of Saddam Hussein, enemies to freedom… and secondly, lament how vitriolic the Democrats can be.

6) “Hauling out the disgruntled, the partisan and Bob Woodward to draw conclusions based on opinions might be good fun, but it's certainly not convincing.”

You are the first person I have ever heard call Bob Woodward partisan (at least, the only conservative calling him liberaly partisan), especially given how much praise Bush is given in his book and how high conservative radio hosts loved it when it came out. I suspect, with respect, that you simply designated him as such after hearing his charges rather than thoughtfully look at his record as a journalist, or better still, actually read the book. I would certainly like to know why the administration has not called him a liar for making up facts when he was given access to high level meetings and documents. Thus far, not a single person to my knowledge has leveled that charge to him.

7) “See the recent polls 3/29 & 3/30 - the American people have seen through this charade. I'm surprised you haven't. Or maybe you have and merely seek to amuse yourself.”

Of course, if public opinion polls are a record of a presidents performance, then you must accept the conclusion of your argument to mean that Bill Clinton was a wonderful president throughout his administration and even upon leaving office. When Bush’s numbers drop (as they have in the recent past), will you be so quick to credit it to an enlightened public?

I understand your tremendous partisanship, as this president is extremely polarizing. I have enjoyed our discussions very much and certainly hope that you have taken no offense to anything that I have said. Strong supporters of Bush are just as likely to blindly dismiss anyone who criticized the administration as strong critics are to embrace them. I am sure each of us thinks the other is ignoring the obvious, or blind to reality, or twisting the facts as they see fit. That is the beauty of democracy.

-- Adam