IS IT A STRATEGY -- OR A STORYLINE?

Every single network newscast last night labelled the White House's response to Richard Clarke's charge's "personal." This Post story is completely in alignment with those stories. The narrative goes like this: whatever Clarke has to say about the President's performance on terrorism is a "charge" or an "accusation," in other words it is substanstive. Whatever an administration official has to say about those charges or about Clarke is a "tactic," and it is an attempt to "discredit him," in other words it is spin. He argues: they do not answer; they come back with ad hominems. But an ad homeinem attack is an argument fallacy, it is when someone makes an argument and rather than answer the argument you attack the person. The White House is providing information about the person that goes to the credibility of the charges.

It is interesting to discover, for example, even though it is buried in this story, that Clarke is not merely "teaching with" Kerry's national security guy, as 60 Minutes suggested, but that Kerry's guy is his "best friend." It is interesting to find out, as several people have now noted, that Clarke was not attending Rice's daily staff meetings. These pieces of information are not "personal," and they are not merely efforts to "discredit" the man: they speak directly to the credibility of his charges. Clarke presents himself as someone with no partisan agenda; perhaps that is not entirely true. Clarke presents himself as someone no one would listen to; perhaps he was not taking every available opportunity to speak.

Note too that this immediately became folded into the "horse race" narrative. This maybe on the surface a story about the way our nation responded to a grave threat. Yeah, whatever. What really interests the reporters is the political angle -- which is why, you will note, all the bylines are White House and political reporters, not national security and homeland security beat reporters.

The second article in the Post, which is by beat reporters, has two fascinating tidbits in it. The first is the fact that Clarke would know exactly what he was doing by having the book released during a presidential election. In fact, although I could not confirm this myself. a National Security Council staffer on Hardball last night, was suggesting that the original publication date was in April, but that the book was moved up so that it could be released the same week as his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Now that's timing.

The second item is this:

And in 1993, Clarke writes, he wanted the Clinton administration to undertake a much more vigorous bombing campaign in response to the attempted assassination of former president George H.W. Bush, a plot he says he called to the attention of the White House.

He discloses how he supervised the response, which ended up being a strike against Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad, but adds that he was "initially disappointed that the retaliation had been so small, that targets had been taken off the list, and that the raid was scheduled in the middle of the night when few Iraqi intelligence officers would be present."

That's interesting because in the 60 Minutes interview he specifically refers to the cruise missile attack on Iraqi intellgence, and the message that followed it, as particularly effective ("a chilling message," he said) because the Iraqis didn't launch terrorists against us again "until we invaded them." There was no mention made of any complaints he had against the Clintons. Which suggests that I'm correct that whatever is or is not in the book, the interview was designed to make it looks as if the book is a White House tell all, a "gotcha."

Comments

[Ron Hardin]

As you and all people with a decent historical sense know, but it's worth pointing out, an ad hominem argument is one that flatters or appeals to the interests of the listener; somehow it became an attack on somebody, for the rabble media.

An attack would be contra hominem. ``ad'' is ``to.''

Tristram Shandy:

> Your son,--your dear son,--from whose sweet and open temper you have so much to expect.-- Your Billy, Sir!--would you, for the world, have called him Judas?--Would you, my dear Sir, he would say, laying his hand upon your breast, with the genteelest address,--and in that soft and irresistible piano of voice, which the nature of the argumentum === ad hominem === absolutely requires,--Would you, Sir, if a Jew of a godfather had proposed the name for your child, and offered you his purse along with it, would you have consented to such a desecration of him?--O my God! he would say, looking up, if I know your temper right, Sir,--you are incapable of it;--you would have trampled upon the offer;--you would have thrown the temptation at the tempter's head with abhorrence.''

Some Baptist writing no longer on the web:

> I came back at this professor with an argumentum === ad hominem ===, "Is it true," said I, "that the more knowledge your wife has of you, the less faith she has in you?

[Ron Hardin]

I had to laugh when Jonathan Alter came on Imus at 6:30 and began a 10-minute charge that Bush was trashing Clarke just like Bush trashes every critic. I wonder if Limbaugh will have audio clips from a thousand sources of the same talking point. It may be worth listening today.