March 26, 2004


When it comes to Richard Clarke, Tim Dunlop is wearing rose-coloured glasses over rose-coloured contact lenses stuck to eyeballs treated with rose-coloured lasers:

... the guy oozed integrity yesterday, highlighted by the fact of his apology to the families for not stopping the 9/11 attacks. People might like to suggest (though I haven't seen it done yet) that he was insincere or just being politically astute, but I doubt very much that you can fake something like that. To attack the sincerity of the apology is just going to leave the attackers looking more desperate and petty than they already do ... "the White House's Clarke problem" (love that expression) ain't going to go away.

Man. After a dose like that, you need Jeff Jarvis for the antidote.

Posted by Tim Blair at March 26, 2004 12:28 PM

Tim sure does respond well to being buttered up. And does integrity really "ooze"?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 26, 2004 at 12:56 PM

Well, I've watched Clarke, and he certainly does "ooze." Ooze what, is the question.

As for faking integrity, I used to teach salesmanship, and we had a saying. "The most important quality in a salesman is sincerity. Once you can successfully fake that you've got it made."

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at March 26, 2004 at 01:05 PM

Does Dunlop swallow too?

Posted by: mikem at March 26, 2004 at 01:12 PM

No public official can say this, but when I heard Clarke issue his apology I gagged. He was playing to the crowd and knew that if anyone accused him of doing that they would be crucified. This man is one tough cookie.

Posted by: Ted at March 26, 2004 at 01:22 PM

First, there was

by Elizabeth Taylor

by Calvin Klein

by Tommy Hilfiger

Now comes the latest in a proud tradition of celebrity colognes and perfumes...

By Richard Clarke.

"He just oozes it."


Sorry, couldn't resist.

Posted by: david at March 26, 2004 at 01:24 PM

Nobody's attacking the sincerity of Clarke's apology, of course. But that'll be the hand-waving response to anyone who starts pointing out the inconsistencies, lies, errors, etc. etc. etc. in Clarke-world. Just you watch.

Posted by: Brian Jones at March 26, 2004 at 02:09 PM

What's the Bunyip's expression? That's right, "Slurpfest".

In the (shudder) event that Kerry wins what are the chances on Clarke being re-employed?

And if he is does anyone else want to club in cornering the burqa market?


Posted by: PeterB at March 26, 2004 at 02:13 PM


He was playing to the crowd and knew that if anyone accused him of doing that they would be crucified.

After that 60 Minutes puff-piece/book promo interview, I found it preposterous as well; my exact words were: "Give me a f*cking break!"

Posted by: Spiny Norman at March 26, 2004 at 02:13 PM

He oozes bogosity. He's done more flip flops than John Kerry and it wasn't because the "meanies made him." He contradicted his earlier testimony to the same commission which was given after he left government service. Of course, that was before he had a book to sell.

Posted by: Cracker Barrel Philosopher at March 26, 2004 at 02:38 PM

He is enjoying his 15 minutes, which the networks are hoping to extend by 5 minutes. Unfortunately, more and more people get their news from FNC in the States and Clarke has serious credibility problems, in that a number of his claims can be directly refuted by statements both he and those he accuses have made in direct conflict of his book. The book is out too early to impact the election. Kerry has a miniscule lead in the polls at a time he should have a big lead. He has been caught in a big lie in that he was at a peace group meeting that advocated killing political opponents, which he has denied forever, but which is now coming out as having occured.

All in all, Bush can be very thankful he is running against a very weak opponent.

Posted by: JEM at March 26, 2004 at 02:47 PM

...was insincere or just being politically astute, but I doubt very much that you can fake something like that.

Where has this guy been? Didn't he watch TeeVee© during the 8 years of the Clinton White House?

Posted by: Wallace at March 26, 2004 at 03:09 PM

What's with the Oz proletariat and people named Clark? Is Christopher Sheil going to be jealous?

Posted by: Gary at March 26, 2004 at 03:43 PM

Will Tim.D challenge CS to Clarks at high noon?
Or will they simply compare the size of there Clarks?

Posted by: Gary at March 26, 2004 at 03:51 PM


Posted by: CSortelli at March 26, 2004 at 04:25 PM

What is disingenuous about these attacks on President GWB by his opponents is that if he had acted prior to 9/11 to assassinate Osama and legislate the Homeland Security Act they would have been the first ones screaming 'american imperialist cowboy'.

Posted by: Robin Wade at March 26, 2004 at 05:19 PM

Hell, they're doing it NOW.

Posted by: Tongue Boy at March 27, 2004 at 12:21 AM

Should I mention again that I think Tim Dunlop needs to believe Bill Clinton was the paragon of honesty to believe Richard Clarke "oozed" intregity?

Man, with friends like Clarke and himself, John Kerry does not need enemies. He is defeating his own presidential run by self-inflicted degrees...

...And the liberal media is helping him do so!


Posted by: C.T. at March 27, 2004 at 01:58 AM

Let me go out on a limb here - the entirety of Western civilization needs to apologize to the entirety of Western civilization

We let this happen to ourselves, because we sat on our hands as Islamists gained followers, power and state sponsors.

This growth of Jihadists and Islamists didn't occur in a vacuum and it didn't happen without warning. Some experts were warning a disbelieving public as early as the late 1980's, but the media chose to tell the public that the bigger threat was global warming and an ozone hole.

The implication from the media was that terrorism was just the stuff of fantastic movie plots and not something we needed to seriously consider.

The public swallowed it - hook, line and sinker - and therefore it is the public that needs to apologize to itself for not taking the warnings seriously.

Posted by: Dwayne at March 27, 2004 at 05:01 AM

I'd just like to say that any sympathy I felt for the 9-11 families is gone. I'm tired of treating them as some kind of sacred cow that everyone has to bow down and pay homage to. Certain segments of this group have used their "victim" status as an opportunity to attack President Bush politically every chance they get. Their phony indignation, their recitation of Democratic talking points, their faked "outrage" at any mention of 9-11 as it pertains to Pres. Bush's leadership, I'm sick of hearing it. Their satisfaction with the 9-11 Commission will be directly proportional to the degree with which it indicts the Bush administration. These people have hitched their wagon to a liar and a fraud in the person of Richard Clarke. Does anyone remember the families of the Pearl Harbor victims demanding an apology from FDR? We were attacked. That's what mattered. That's what mattered then and that's what matters now. As far as I'm concerned the 9-11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows or whatever the hell they call themselves along with the other liberal anti-war factions that have formed within the Sept. 11 families group can take their political agenda and shove it. You no longer have my respect or my sympathy.

Posted by: zubby at March 27, 2004 at 05:12 AM

I'm surprised that Jeff Jarvis could spare the time and space, what with his Howard Stern fixation and all.

Posted by: geezer at March 27, 2004 at 06:42 AM

Clarke's apology would've been a lot more meaningful if the son-of-a-bitch had apologized to the families of the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, the Khobar Tower bombings, the USS Cole, etc.

That dick was in his job for three presidents and if he wants to assume the mantle of apologist for one attack by al Qaeda, he ought to be man enough to admit his culpability in all the others as well.

Posted by: JDB at March 27, 2004 at 10:00 AM

Well, I apologized to myself and then forgave myself and then I and myself had a hug and a cry and now all is well in my corner of Western Civ. Now can we go kill some freakin' terrorists?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 27, 2004 at 12:52 PM

Yes, you may. Need any ammo?

Posted by: JeffS at March 27, 2004 at 03:00 PM

Dwayne is right - both the media and the public in general must take blame for the malaise over the last 20 years re: terrorism.

And FBI, CIA, NSA, and other security bodies should be explaining what they did with the Operation Bojinka intel they gained in 1995. Nobody took any of this stuff seriously back then - we were too busy watching the stock market sail up into the stratosphere. Fine, we all screwed up by not paying enough attention, but it would be nice if the partisan anti-Bush types and the media stopped acting like terrorism was a priority before January 2001 when Bush was inaugurated, but ignored afterwards.

Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at March 28, 2004 at 12:28 AM

In addition to my last comment, I'd say this is required reading:
Speaking at a press conference on May 16, 2002, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s National Security Advisor, defended the Bush Administration against charges that Bush learned enough information about a possible airborne attack on the WTC in the spring and summer of 2001 to have prevented the attack. Rice stated that the Clinton Administration did not tell her about Bojinka.

Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at March 28, 2004 at 01:31 AM