Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 5 April 2004

Leftwing journalists are worse than hyenas when they think they smell Republican blood. Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus wrote as if there was something unusual if not sinister in Condi Rice's refusal to testify in front of the 9/11 commission (Rice Defends Refusal To Testify, Washington Post, 29 March).

What this pair omitted from their report is the fact that National Security Council directors are supposed to only testify behind closed doors. This is a recognised tradition and one that Democrats always uphold, unless they happen to be out of power. And Pincus and Milbank are hardcore Bush-hating Democrats.

These excuses for journalists laboured hard to convey the impression that the White House was striving to discredit Clarke. Not true. What the White House is doing is trying to get out to the public what the dishonest likes of Pincus and Milbank refuse to publish and that is that Clarke’s brazen lies have already discredited him.

Despite the fact that Clarke has given three different versions of events Pincus and Milbank continued to ignore his blatant contradictions. Only a shameless Democrat like Clarke could get away with something as barefaced as this and still be treated with respect by the media.

Pincus and Milbank exposed their own political bigotry when they uncritically reported Clarke's comment that his "book should be believed over his previous statements flattering Bush's counterterrorism efforts 'because I have no obligation anymore to spin'".

Clarke is freely admitting he is a liar and this pair of so-called journalists reported his confession as if it had no bearing on his accusations. (Let's not forget that character doesn't matter to hardcore Democrats, unless it's a Republican administration).

They even accepted his explanation that he was only being polite when he wrote to President Bush that "You served our nation with distinction and honor". Can any reader imagine this pair of Democrats tolerating these verbal contortions from a Republican?

This joker was Clinton’s anti-terrorist czar for eight years during which there were a number of lethal attacks on Americans and nothing was done. The same man who, according to Manoor Ijaz, a former Clinton official, blocked the arrest of bin Laden, now attacks President Bush for not doing in eight months what he and Clinton did not do in eight years, and Pincus and Milbank support him.

Mansoor publicly stated: "In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again". So who does the mainstream media target? Bush and Rice, of course.

Mansoor's statement is devastating. So why has the mainstream media, or should I say the politically bigoted media, ignored it? Because the so-called mainstream is largely run and manned by Republican-hating Democrats like Pincus and Milbank.

That's why they refused to grill Clarke. That's why they never demanded that Clarke tell them why Clinton refused to retaliate against al Qaeda when the Cole was bombed, killing 17 US servicemen. And that's why they refuse to expose Clarke's lies and contradictions. And they had the nerve to call Nixon a crook!

After the attack on the Cole Special Forces Colonel Mike Sheehan discussed the atrocity at a White House meeting, which came to absolutely nothing. On leaving the building Colonel Sheehan turned to Clarke and said: "'What's it gonna take, Dick?' Sheehan demanded. 'Who the s--- do they think attacked the Cole, f------ Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Does al-Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?'"

So why didn't Clinton retaliate? Because, in the words of Bill Cohen, his Defence Secretary, the attack that killed seventeen American sailors was "not sufficiently provocative" to deserve a military response — or any other kind of response. And once again, who's being blamed, thanks to the media? Bush and Rice.

Clarke claimed in his book that the Sudan never made an offer to hand bin Laden over to Clinton. However, Clinton himself publicly admitted that the offer was made and he turned it down. Moreover, Ali Osman Mohammed Taha, the Sudan's foreign minister, told US Ambassador Tim Carney that they were prepared to handover bin Laden. (Losing bin Laden by Richard Minter. This is one book that the lefty media has tried to bury).

If the above facts do not make Clarke a liar then what does? Nevertheless, who do Pincus and Milbank try to stitch up? Why, Condi Rice of course. That'll teach uppity blacks to leave the Democrats' plantation and join the GOP, won't it, lads?

In his book Off With Their Heads Dick Morris attacked Clinton for deliberately leaving the al Qaeda problem to Bush. Morris related how Clinton intentionally turned away from the terrorist problem even though he knew "everything he needed to". And this observation came from within the Clintons' inner circle.

As Morris said: "If history is just, President Bill Clinton will likewise be blamed for leaving George W. Bush a nation unaware of, and unprotected from, the deadly peril that to hit seven months later".

Unfortunately, in America the media, meaning the likes of Pincus and Milbank, write history — and that means it will never be just, at least where Republicans are concerned

Pincus and Milbank wrote:

"Rice argued that 'al Qaeda is not more dangerous today than it was on September 11' but said it is still dangerous. She also said, 'The world is a lot safer and the war on terrorism is well-served by the victory in Iraq.' When it was noted that there have been more terrorist attacks in the 30 months since Sept. 11 than in the 30 months prior, she replied: 'That's the wrong way to look at it.'"

Condi Rice is absolutely right in saying that these jokers were looking at the situation in the wrong way. Everyday under the Taliban was a day of terror. Everyday under Saddam was a day of terror. Both have gone, no thanks to the Washington Post and the New York Times.

And how many terrorist attacks would there have been if the Taliban had not been overthrown and Iraq liberated from its murderous tyrant? We'll never know, thanks to a politically courageous president who is now being politically crucified by a partisan media for what the Democrats didn't have the moral guts to do.

If Pincus and Milbank were honest reporters, which they are not, they would have pointed out to readers that Clinton's cowardly refusal to retaliate against al Qaeda resulted in more and lethal terrorist attacks against the US targets until finally bin Laden massacred 3,000 New Yorkers, for which the Democrats, with considerable help from their media comrades, are trying to blame President Bush.

It's blindingly obvious that Clarke's book and testimony are both dishonest and partisan This is the same character who in August 2002 briefed reporters about the Bush administration's determined efforts to fight terrorism. He explained that the administration had increased the CIA's covert action budget by 500 per cent and was working hard at improving anti-terrorist tactics. Now the media is trying to airbrush this briefing out of history.

If Clarke's new tune is the right one why did 9-11 happen? If fighting terrorism was a matter of foreign aid and polished diplomacy why did Americans suffer an increasing number of terrorist attacks during the eight years of the Clinton presidency? During which, incidentally, Clarke was its anti-terrorist czar.

These are just a few of the questions that every honest observer is asking. I suppose that's why milbank, Pincus and their media mates are not asking them.

Now what can we say of Clarke? He is an embittered and vicious man who is bearing false witness against an honourable and decent man in an effort to destroy him; he has also used his position to personally profit from the 9/11 atrocity.

No wonder a group of 9/11 families wrote a public letter excoriating this miserable and greedy little wretch who is still enjoying his 15 minutes of infamy thanks to his leftwing media friends.

Here is a little background material for those who think I’ve been too hard on Pincus and Milbank: Pincus and Milbank: the low-down on twoWashington Post Bush-hating reporters

Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor