Partisan

March 25, 2004

Howie Kurtz slams Clarke in passing today:

This reminds me of the largely bipartisan tone of the 9/11 commission hearings. In an age when seemingly everyone wants to score partisan points (see Clarke, Richard) [ Media Notes Extra ]

What’s partisan about Clarke, I wonder? He opposes the president’s policy, as near as I can tell based on years of experience and solid evidence that the Bush administration did not then and does not now address the problem of terrorism in a constructive fashion. No one who disagrees with him has made a genuine effort to debunk what he’s said—or at least, if they have, I haven’t seen it (here, trolly trolly trolly).

What I have seen are attempts to destroy his credibility without ever actually addressing the issue out of hand. Cheney says he was out of the loop (why was he out of the loop? Wasn’t he paid to be the loop?) but Condi says he attended every terrorism meeting. They say he’s working for the Democrats, but I haven’t heard him endorse or comment on a Kerry plan. I haven’t seen anything that suggests he’s campaigning for Kerry or with Kerry or donating large amounts of cash to lefty causes.

I have heard some of his best friends are Democrats, but that don’t impress me much. Some of my friends are Republicans. Or, at least, they probably thought they were Republicans. Now they are probably considered “Democratic partisans” because they are friends with me.

I think the man is partisan insofar as he’s opposed to incompetent people, and Bush has demonstrated that he’s incompetent.

As far as it being unfair for him to bring this up in an election year—don’t be silly. Election time is the closest we come to a presidential Performance Review. Is there any time that’s more appropriate to question the President’s effectiveness on vital issues?

Posted in War