That's probably an opinion of Clarke that many committed supporters of the administration formed on hearing that Clarke was going to testify and that he had a book coming out. It's not, however, the only means of dismissing what Clarke has to say. Both Charles Krauthammer (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25466-2004Mar25.html) and David Brooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/opinion/27BROO.html?ex=1395810000& ;en=def7155ff2b3264a&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND) spin Clarke as inconsistent and partisan. Brooks also takes gets in the cheap shots that Clarke's book sales will go up and that Clarke portrays himself in the book as an action/adventure movie hero.
I also remember more than few articles of straight reportage that prominently quoted John Lehman saying that Clarke had a "credibility problem" and didn't print Clarke's rejoinder. I don't have any URLs; they're too depressing to look for.
> Therefore, their approval of Bush goes up since he (Bush) becomes
> in this scenario the "victim" of the machinations of a former
> office holder turned book promoter.
Yep. Strange how victimhood has become the exclusive property of the right...or maybe not, since libs ran from the charge and succesfully separated themselves from the disadvantaged. Maybe the political arena needs victims of injustice to feed the wrath of the believers.
> They view Clarke as pursuing this course of action for his own
> benefit/enjoyment since the culture they inhabit always stresses
> the maximization of enjoyment. In their minds, Clarke is no
> different than they are -- everyone seeks to maximize
enjoyment/benefit.
His motive is accept to them, certainly--but his means (writing a book critical of the current administration) is not.
I have no idea how much currency and credence Clarke's charges will gain in the coming months. Haven't read the article on scandal that the multinomious K linked to. I'm inclined to be pessimistic, however.
Curtiss