Friday, April 02, 2004
An Open Letter To MoveOn.org
Dear MoveOn,
Richard Clarke is right.
I refer to that ad you've made that makes use of Clarke's words and voice in a frontal attack on the Bush administration. Mr Clarke's discomfort was predictable and is entirely understandable. Not that there's anything wrong with being partisan; those of us who remain unpleased with our current President's performance in office are and should be proudly partisan.
My disagreement with your position takes nothing away from my admiration and support for MoveOn as a uniquely hopeful organization that is reviving American democracy from the grass roots up.
But Richard Clarke is about something else. He has taken pains to be clear that he is not a "partisan," that in writing his book and testifying before the 9/11 Commission he has acted without personal rancor, his single purpose, to inform, to enlighten, and not to take sides anywhere but in the voting booth. And since he clearly had some idea of the kind of personal attacks his going public was bound to unleash against him, I don't think it's excessive to view him as heroic.
Not that your ad claims him for our side. It doesn't. But let's be honest with ourselves; unfairly or not, your ad is bound to undermine his credibility, the maintenance of which, for the time being, is a far more important goal for us partisans than is the dissemination of his views, especially in thirty second soundbites. Hey guys, it ain't worth it. Nor is it fair to Richard Clarke.
The counter arguments you’ve made in response to his wish you withdraw the ads are good ones, both legally and ethically. But when all is said and done, aren’t they really beside the point?
This story isn't over. Let it play out. There will be time enough to use intelligently what we've learned from Mr. Clarke, and without drawing his ire, or giving such ready ammunition to those determined to attack his integrity.
As noted at TAPPED, this was the week that the SCLM seems to have discovered those four young 9/11 widows from New Jersey who're are the main reason there is a 9/11 Commission. One of them, Kristin Breitweiser, appeared last Thursday on Hardball (scrowl down) and made this statement about her response to the commission hearing at which Clarke appeared:
When Chris Matthews tried to get her to attack the Republican commission members to whom she was clearly referring, she refused to take the bait. But that didn't keep her from saying this about Condi Rice in regards to her statement that in the summer of 2001, no one could have imagined a terrorist attack using airliners as missiles.
It's sting is directly proportional to Kristen Breitweiser's insistence on a stance of strict non-partisanship.
"A transparent definitive comprehensive final report removed from politics..." Isn't that what we all want? That the White House appears not to want that, whatever they claim, says everything about how they view in whose genuine interest such a document will prove to be.
Kristen Breitweiser's articulation of what should be the goal for all of us gives you a graceful way to withdraw the ad. May I respectfully submit that this is not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do.
As ever, your loyal MoveOn member
Richard Clarke is right.
I refer to that ad you've made that makes use of Clarke's words and voice in a frontal attack on the Bush administration. Mr Clarke's discomfort was predictable and is entirely understandable. Not that there's anything wrong with being partisan; those of us who remain unpleased with our current President's performance in office are and should be proudly partisan.
My disagreement with your position takes nothing away from my admiration and support for MoveOn as a uniquely hopeful organization that is reviving American democracy from the grass roots up.
But Richard Clarke is about something else. He has taken pains to be clear that he is not a "partisan," that in writing his book and testifying before the 9/11 Commission he has acted without personal rancor, his single purpose, to inform, to enlighten, and not to take sides anywhere but in the voting booth. And since he clearly had some idea of the kind of personal attacks his going public was bound to unleash against him, I don't think it's excessive to view him as heroic.
Not that your ad claims him for our side. It doesn't. But let's be honest with ourselves; unfairly or not, your ad is bound to undermine his credibility, the maintenance of which, for the time being, is a far more important goal for us partisans than is the dissemination of his views, especially in thirty second soundbites. Hey guys, it ain't worth it. Nor is it fair to Richard Clarke.
The counter arguments you’ve made in response to his wish you withdraw the ads are good ones, both legally and ethically. But when all is said and done, aren’t they really beside the point?
This story isn't over. Let it play out. There will be time enough to use intelligently what we've learned from Mr. Clarke, and without drawing his ire, or giving such ready ammunition to those determined to attack his integrity.
As noted at TAPPED, this was the week that the SCLM seems to have discovered those four young 9/11 widows from New Jersey who're are the main reason there is a 9/11 Commission. One of them, Kristin Breitweiser, appeared last Thursday on Hardball (scrowl down) and made this statement about her response to the commission hearing at which Clarke appeared:
BREITWEISER: Frankly, the commissioners, I think, need to do a self-examination and determine who they‘re really representing on this commission. Are they representing the interests of the families and the rest of the nation? Or are they representing certain Washington individuals?
And I think that they really need to make that decision prior to their writing of the final report. The families want a transparent definitive comprehensive final report removed from politics.
It is such an insult to sit through hearings that we have waited two and a half years to have and have to bear witness to such partisan politics.
When Chris Matthews tried to get her to attack the Republican commission members to whom she was clearly referring, she refused to take the bait. But that didn't keep her from saying this about Condi Rice in regards to her statement that in the summer of 2001, no one could have imagined a terrorist attack using airliners as missiles.
You know, Chris, the families would like Dr. Rice to testify under oath in a public hearing. She made a very public statement and I think one of two things. Either she flat out lied or she‘s incompetent, because the historical record is replete with instances of planes being used as missiles.
I can hold up the joint inquiry report. You see all the post-its on here, indicating instances of planes being used as missiles, of al Qaeda being interested in using plane as missiles of attacks in the homeland.
It's sting is directly proportional to Kristen Breitweiser's insistence on a stance of strict non-partisanship.
"A transparent definitive comprehensive final report removed from politics..." Isn't that what we all want? That the White House appears not to want that, whatever they claim, says everything about how they view in whose genuine interest such a document will prove to be.
Kristen Breitweiser's articulation of what should be the goal for all of us gives you a graceful way to withdraw the ad. May I respectfully submit that this is not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do.
As ever, your loyal MoveOn member
