Bush Knew?

The blogosphere, at least the liberal end of it, is in a dither tonight over the interview on 60 minutes of Richard Clarke. Richard Clarke was appointed as the terrorism "czar" under Bill Clinton and served for about a year under Bush. Blogs like this one are noting Richard Clarke's assertion that Bush was obsessed with Iraq and ignored warnings from the Clinton Administration about Bin Laden. Of course, they overlook the interview with another Bush aide who tells a different story...

Deputy National Security Advisor, Steve Hadley, told 60 minutes (as quoted here) something else:

The President, from his first day in office, was meeting with his director of Central Intelligence, getting intelligence briefings on terrorism and al-Qaeda, so the threat was already raised.

So we have two different people with two different versions of the story. Who to believe? Well, it would seem that both parties have something to gain here. Surely, those from the Clinton Administration don't want to be seen as the ones who let their guard down prior to 9/11. Obviously, those from the Bush Team would like to avoid the same accusation, especially with an election around the corner.

It should be noted that Richard Clarke told a different story in a previous book. In "Losing bin Laden," by Richard Miniter, Clark said that it was the Clinton administration - not Bush - that dropped the ball on bin Laden. It would seem that Richard Clarke is contradicting his previous statements. With a brand new book on the way, Against All Enemies due to be released just before his testimony at the 9/11 commission,(what a coincidence) Richard Clarke would seem to be a dubious source.

None of this matters to the mainstream press. At best, they want to see scandalous headlines in order to generate the controversy that pumps up ratings. At worst, they aren't exactly sympathetic to the Bush Administration and would like to undermine it.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-partisan organization, found in a recent study that despite having given the most favorable coverage to the war, CBS was toughest on President Bush in its aftermath with 77 percent negative evaluations, followed by ABC with 67 percent negative and NBC with 62 percent negative comments.

None of this means for certain that the criticisms of President Bush aren't warranted. I'm not advocating blind faith of any branch or official of the government. However, in light of Clarke's questionable veracity, I don't put too much credence in them. Of course, those who want to believe that he's some kind of warmonger will foam at the mouth and point to this as yet more "proof" of Bush's malevolence.

Interviews like the one on 60 minutes convince nobody. They're designed for one purpose only, to create controversy and pump up television ratings. It's up to the viewer to do a little critical thinking, something exceedingly rare these days, in order to make a reasoned judgement. In my reasoned judgement, there's a whole lot of smoke here, but not much fire.

Note:
Okay, I'm ready for the onslaught from the left-leaning blog I quoted above. Let me have it -- tell me I've been duped by the evil Bush -- and that he's evil incarnate, blah blah blah. I know how you libs feel. I couldn't stand Bill Clinton and it was difficult to evaluate anything the man did without seeing it in a negative light. That didn't win elections though and Clinton won both of his. We'll see if the mud being slung around sticks to Bush. In the meantime, let's all enjoy the fact that in America, we're all entitled to our opinions - not matter how idiotic others think they may be.
-jim.

Posted by jdmays at March 22, 2004 01:25 AM | TrackBack