Manipulation, Clarke, and Pogo

At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran of ABC News actually said what many thought during other conveniently timed alerts: "There is a disturbing possibility that you are manipulating the American public in order to get a message out."

- Paul Krugman (the editor took out the "duh" and "no fucking shit" )

Manipulation of the public, of course, is at the core of politics (as the grandfather in Boondocks recently said, he didn't want someone leading the country who couldn't lie), but this administration is particularly skilled at doing so. So, as is often the case with these people, it is a matter of degree. Richard Clarke, whose fifteen minutes of fame is apparently up (too many administration critics, too little time), is a good case in point.

Richard Clarke was appointed by President Clinton the first National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism in May 1998 and continued in that position under George W. Bush. Until March 2003 he was a career member of the Senior Executive Service, having begun his federal service in 1972 in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as analyst on nuclear weapons and European security issues. In the Reagan administration, Mr. Clarke was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence. In the first Bush administration, he was the Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs.

[About the Author, book jacket of Against All Enemies]

Sounds like someone that can provide valid perspectives on dealing with terrorism, especially if his conclusions are backed up by other experts in the field, hmm? How about if we add, as Condi Rice did in passing in her public testimony to the 9/11 Commission (though many wouldn't know from press reports), that he was the crisis manager at the White House on the morning of 9/11? A registered Republican? Someone with a long term involvement, often in leadership roles, on the question of Al Qaida and other terrorist concerns? I'd think so.

This is not how things were "spun" and widely viewed (even by many of those not in Bush's pocket). He was portrayed as a disgruntled employee, one who was biased toward Clinton (who he apparently thought did nothing wrong), and as pretty much outside the loop. Let me tell you, I just started his book, and the "I was there" insider account of that morning suggests to me otherwise. Also, it has been noted that there seems to be quite a lot of "disgruntled employees" in the Bush Administration, especially as related to this overall issue. Finally, perhaps the negative comparison vis-a-vis Bush and Clinton is in place because it's accurate? Hey, it's possible.

Legal Fiction put forth a pessimistic view that President Bush's public manipulation skills will (at least as things are going now) lead to a second term. I think he's too pessimistic (it's closer than he implies, but if Bush wins, I will not be shocked), but his fears are legitimate, given how close things are, even when many think that it's patently obvious that this guy has to go. It is partly the fault of Sen. Kerry, since poll data shows that there is discontent there for the taking. [I do think it's too early to tell all the same.]

All the same, it's more than that. To paraphrase Pogo, I see the enemy, and it is us. As long as a sizable amount of the public, not just the totally clueless, eat this sort of stuff up, we will be in trouble. [Sen. John Edwards would partly be a good choice for vice president because of his ability to connect to the public and promote an alternative message.] To a certain degree, I fear, we want to be fooled. If so, Bush is the better one for the job.