Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 5 April 2004

The leftwing Marian Wilkinson, Washington correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald (aka The Saddam Times), has dropped any pretence at objectivity to become a media mouthpiece for the Democrats.

She began her veiled attack on Condi Rice by stressing that "the White House National Security … is standing by her refusal to testify under oath to the September 11 commission of inquiry — despite a public plea from the head of the commission to do so".

Wilkinson omitted three very relevant facts. The first one being that NSA directors are not supposed to testify in public. Of course the Democrats have changed the rule so that it now only applies to Republicans. The second one is that Condi Rice has already spent four hours testifying in front of the commission. The third fact is that Clarke used the same rule in July 1999 to avoid testifying before a Senate Committee.

There was certainly nothing dishonourable or sinister in Clarke's refusal to testify in 1999. He was simply acting in accordance with executive privilege and the separation of powers doctrine, just as President Truman did when he refused to testify before a congressional committee.

Reading Wilkinson, however, and her media mates any naïve sole could be forgiven for believing that it's Condi Rice who is breaking with tradition by defying the commission.

According to Wilkinson "The hearings have highlighted serious gaps between Dr Rice's statements about what the White House did before September 11 and evidence from Mr Clarke that is backed by classified White House documents. In particular, Dr Rice's claim that a White House plan to 'destroy' al-Qaeda was radically different from president Bill Clinton's plan has been brought into question".

Not to put too fine a point on it, Wilkinson is lying. To begin with, Clinton had no plan to tackle al Qaeda. As Clarke said at an August 2002 press briefing: "There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration ..." Gee. I guess Wilkinson was too busy to report this juicy little item.

Now it's true that Clarke formulated a plan to use the Northern Alliance and Pakistan to remove the Taliban. (The plan was abandoned, apparently in the face of opposition from the Pentagon). Unfortunately, this is not how Wilkinson chose to report the matter.

Wilkinson also chose not to report that Clarke stated that "in January, the day (Bush) took office, they started putting together an action plan on dealing with this... The process which was initiated in the first week of February decided in principle …to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action fivefold to go after Al-Qaeda" (August 2002 press briefing).

So how did Wilkinson square this statement with Clarke's later statements? By simply ignoring it. This is what The Saddam Times calls investigative reporting. The less charitable among us would call it lying by omission.

Clarke claimed in his book: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before". Only the likes of Wilkinson could take this kind of thing seriously. It should have been obvious that Clarke was deliberately maligning Rice.

To insinuate, as he did, that Rice is so incompetent and ignorant of current events that she knew nothing of al Qaeda can only be construed as a calculated piece of character assassination. Any decent person would be ashamed to parrot it — but not our fearlessly honest reporters. Isn't that right, Wilkinson?

In fact, Rice gave a radio interview on 4 October, 2000, in which she discussed al Qaeda and gave suggestions on what was needed to combat it. In case little Miss Wilkinson can't figure out the sequence, the interview preceded the Clarke meeting. It also preceded the 9/11 atrocity by some 11 months.

The Democrats, and their media sock-puppets, are calling Condi Rice a liar for saying that the Bush administration had a plan in place before 9/11 that included the elimination of the Taliban. It has now been revealed that the Defense Department was ordered to prepare for action against the Taliban. This blows Wilkinson's phony-baloney reporting out of the water.

The question that the likes of Wilkinson ignore is that if Bush was so obsessed with Iraq why did he attack the Taliban first. (I say, Wilkinson, it wouldn't have anything to do with them protecting bin Laden, could it?)

Wilkinson quotes Clarke as claiming that the White House "wasted months when we could have had some action." This statement raises another three points that Wilkinson omitted:

Firstly, Clarke was Clinton’s anti-terrorist czar for eight years, during which Clinton only met with the CIA's chief twice, so where was the action?

Secondly, it wasn't until Bush entered the Oval Office that he discovered that the Clinton administration had allowed al Qaeda to grow into an international threat.

Thirdly, Gore's insistence on Florida recounts and legal confrontations caused the administration a six-week delay.

All in all, even by late 2001 very few of Bush's people had been put in place. This meant that up to eight weeks before the attack virtually all the intelligence and counter-terrorist officials, including Clarke, who were still on duty were Clinton holdovers. Yet Wilkinson doesn't think this fact was worth reporting. Is that because it would have helped undermine Clarke's testimony?

Nevertheless, Clarke and his media enablers have still got the damn gall to point the finger of guilt at Bush and Rice. No wonder Romesh Ratnesar accused Clarke of "mean-spiritedness" (Richard Clarke, at War With Himself, Time, 25 March).

Clarke asserted without a trace of shame that overthrowing the sadistic Saddam provoked terrorism, despite the fact that terrorist acts mounted under him when he was Clinton's counter-terrorist czar who could have had bin Laden arrested. In support of this self-serving statement he says only 35 American died from terrorism under Clinton but 3,000 died under Bush.

A quick look at Clarke's insensitive calculus will expose its obscene logic. Only 35 Americans died if you choose to ignore many of the terrorists attacks during the 90s in which Americans died. As the so-called expert on terrorism, Clarke should also have considered the view that Clinton's lack of resolve in the face of these attacks culminated in the Twin Towers atrocity. But, like the good little Democrat his is, he has decided to blame President Bush.

Now any reasonable person, and there aren't many in the media, could raise the objection that without decisive action by President Bush bin Laden would have launched many more similar attacks.

This is not a self-serving speculation. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's operations chief, has admitted that they had planned similar attacks on the Sears Tower in Chicago and the Library Tower in Los Angeles. It was only decisive action by Bush that stopped them. It seems they thought they were dealing with Clinton or Gore when they attacked the Twin Towers.

Wilkinson finished with this self-righteous quote from Clarke: "Dozens of people... are engaged in the campaign to destroy me, personally and professionally, because I had the temerity to suggest that the American people should consider whether or not the President had done a good job on the war on terrorism".

Clarke fires a barrage of lies and distortions at the Bush administration and then turns teary when it boldly defends itself. The more that is revealed about the events leading up to the 9-11 atrocity the greater is the indictment of Clarke's shameless behaviour and those of his media supporters who have done what they could to try and destroy Bush and Rice.

Now that Rice is going to openly testify in front of the commission bigoted Democrats like Mulholland, who openly bragged about politicising the commission, and partisan reporters like Wilkinson should bear in the mind the old saying of being careful about what you wish for in case you get it.

Well, the Dems might just get it. Rice is an eloquent and very smart woman who should have no problem dealing with Clarke. Which leads to an interesting question: What if the administration has been hoping all along that the commission would insist on Rice publicly testifying?

Wilkinson stated that there are lots of gaps in Condi Rice's statements. But the evidence is revealing that the real gaps in this partisan saga are all between what really happened and what Wilkinson and her fellow-travelling colleagues are writing.

I have said many times that the left's hatred of the Bush administration borders on the pathological. This mental condition seems to make it impossible for lefty journalists to write honest reports.

Wilkinson gave us another example of this condition in Rice gets chance to put her side of the story (3 April). Once again she took Clarke's statements as gospel while treating Rice with barely concealed contempt.

The following articles reveal in detail Wilkinson's political bigotry and dishonest reporting.

A journalist tries to skewer Bush on incomes and inequality

SMH covers up Bush successes in Iraq

Australian reporter whitewashes pro-Saddam lefties

Reporter accuses Bush administration of censoring and controlling US media

Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor