Stuart Benjamin at the Velokh Conspiracy has a few thoughts on the nature of the counterattack to Richard Clarke, as does Jonah Goldberg. Their notion is that, by focussing so much on motive the counter-attackers are missing the crux of the matter: that Clarke's account of things is rife with inconsistencies and factual errors.
From Stuart:
In light of all the above [the fact that critical information is, for national security reasons, withheld], those outside that small circle who are seeking to dismiss Clarke's allegations seem to be on particularly weak ground. He has made very serious allegations and put forward the basis for them, and thus far the Administration has done little to rebut them. Indeed, as Brad DeLong ably catalogues, many of the Administration's responses contradict one another (in fact, many statements by the same Administration official are inconsistent). Until the Administration responds more directly to his allegations (and the basis for them), I can't see the basis on which some can dismiss them. Commentators' dismissals appear to be a matter of faith, not reason.
But Goldberg's take is slightly different:
I think Bush has made some serious mistakes in the war on terror, just as FDR and Churchill probably did in World War II. But Bush's critics, including Clarke, aren't offering finely tuned complaints; they're saying the instrument is not only poorly tuned, it's stolen, the owner is corrupt and stupid, the music is all wrong and the orchestra is evil.I think that's such a batty interpretation of reality, all that's left to explain that worldview is to question their motives, as distasteful as that might be.
It's almost as though offering a controlled and logical counter-argument places the responder in the position of looking almost as batty as the attacker. The blatant inconsistencies and omissions in Clarke's account, admirably detailed by commenters like Rich Lowry constitute such a tedious littany of abuse of the whistleblower function that they suggest a strategy of simple harassment rather than a concern with accountability. The problem is, of course, that the nonsensical hyperbolic aspects of the Clarke thesis pay, and will continue one way or another until they don't.
That's why it may be critically important to institutionalize the roll of fact-checker or "de-spinner," as we have begun to do with enterprises such as Spinsanity. So far Spinsanity hasn't commented directly on the Clarke thesis, probably waiting until the 9/11 Commission winds down and a few more details emerge. At this point all they've done is comment on a debate between Franken and Lowry concerning the role Clarke played as a bridge between the Clinton and Bush Administrations. But how and where they weigh in may ultimately be even more critical here than it was in the flap over Michael Moore. It is no easy task to remain aloof from such delicious controversy, but may become the next step in the transition from democracy to demosophia.
One of the things I learned from James Buchanan involves his insight that as an economy evolves, and the market nexus expands, workers can afford to specialize. In primative societies everyone, or nearly everyone, is a hunter. In more advanced economies some people can, at a certain point, afford to specialize as water-carriers for the hunters, which raises the overall efficiency of everyone's work, further expanding the market nexus. And so it goes. We know about how much folks like Clarke, Moore and Coulter get paid for their specialized niche as centrifugal spinners. What we haven't decided yet is how much the role of centripetal de-spinner is worth.
Posted by Demosophist at March 25, 2004 12:24 PM | TrackBack