EJ Dionne: Clinton’s Falsehood-Littered Blow-Up On FOXNews Was Fighting Propaganda

October 1, 2006 at 12:07 am (Liberal Lies, national security, Uncategorized)

I love to read EJ Dionne Jr., mostly because he’s a dolt who thinks he’s far more intelligent than he truly is. Also, for reasons I can’t quite determine, every time I read his latest screed I get the feeling that I’m reading one of Roger Ebert’s infamously irrelevant political opinions that periodically appear in his movie reviews. Maybe it’s because they both seem to write with this sort of bleeding-heart-father-to-son-straight-talk-on-life-lessons tone when discussing political issues, instead of utilizing things like “facts” to strengthen their opinions.

This particular column had me in stitches.  The basic thesis of these 14 paragraphs of asinine drivel is outlined here:

Bill Clinton’s eruption on “Fox News Sunday” last weekend over questions about his administration’s handling of terrorism was a long time coming and has political implications that go beyond this fall’s elections.

By choosing to intervene in the terror debate in a way that no one could miss, Clinton forced an argument about the past that had up to now been largely a one-sided propaganda war waged by the right. The conservative movement understands the political value of controlling the interpretation of history. Now its control is finally being contested.

The argument about pre-9/11 has been “largely a one-sided propaganda war waged by the right”? Just how delusional is EJ Dionne Jr.? There has been a monumental amount of misinformation spread by the Left with concern to the path to 9/11. JustOneMinute points out one instance (the alleged “Clinton war plan” to eliminate al-Qaeda handed over to the Bush administration.) Liberal revisionists have attempted to portray Clinton as a take-no-prisoners anti-terrorist, in contrast to Bush before 9/11, sometimes pointing to the thwarted Millenium bombing plot. Al Franken claimed in his latest dishonest tome that Clinton put the government on high alert and thwarted the plot, when, in fact, according to the 9/11 Commission report,  Clinton’s high alert had little-to-nothing to do with it. (To read the whole story on this controversy, with documentation, go here.)

Only two examples, you complain? Well reason number one for that: I’m tired and don’t feel like looking up anymore. Number two, compare it to the number of examples of alleged right-wing misinformation offered by Dionne? You guessed it: 0. Amazing  (except not really) that someone like Dionne can work for one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country, and yet still, get away with writing an entire column based on a thesis which he spends not one sentence confirming with any hard facts. What propaganda has the right been spreading? Are we supposed to simply take Dionne at his word, and not expect him to document his claim? The only thing even close to an example is Dionne’s mention of the recent ABC docu-drama,  The Path to 9/11. But even this can’t be considered a valid example. Dionne simply repeats common liberal wisdom that the movie, which was admittedly fictionalized, was propaganda; he never explained why a film which was admittedly dramatized was propaganda.

But most interesting is Dionne’s conclusion:

Propagandistic accounts need to be challenged, systematically and consistently. The debate needed a very hard shove. Clinton delivered it.

What Dionne doesn’t mention is that Clinton’s “shove” was its self filled with dishonest propaganda. Even if Dionne was able to formulate a somewhat substantiated argument that the right has been waging a propagand war against Clinton (something he does a dismal job at), could he justifty that Clinton responded to the propaganda with more lies?

And lie Clinton did. Lied and lied and lied again.  Read the links for a more in-depth analysis, but for one example of those many lies, Clinton repeated the mantra that Clinton left behind a “comprehensive war plan” against al-Qaeda for the Bush administration when he left office. In fact, according to both former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and former Clinton and Bush official Dick Clarke (who Clinton cites as an authority on his terrorism record elsewhere in the interview), that isn’t true.

 Clinton:

They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke.

Berger:

But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.

Clarke:

[T]here was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

EJ Dionne Jr., like Clinton, is a part of a large and growing group of American liberals who are obsessed with expressing outrage over the right’s supposed dishonesty, yet are seemingly completely unaware that their own side is, at least, equally dishonest, and more than likely, more so. The only way to counter such thought is to continue debunking liberal myths when we catch them.

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment