Here’s a transcript of the August 2002 background briefing given by Richard Clarke to a handful of reporters, among them FOXNews’ Jim Angle (who today received White House permission to make the briefing public). The answers Clarke gave in 2002 appear to contradict directly the allegations he’s been leveling — both in his book and in his testimony before the September 11th Commission — that prior to the Trade Center attacks, BushCo “did virtually nothing” to address the Al Qaeda problem.
RICHARD CLARKE: […] I’ve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office
12 Replies to “Oops!”
Okay, I have a question. You’re an English teacher, right? I don’t know this, but I think I read it somewhere. (I should note, I have no familiarity with your prior blogging incarnation. I’m a blog-reading newcomer, relatively, but when I saw numerous heavyweights I respect saying, “Yay! Jeff’s back!”, I had little choice but to come read.) (And, if you are an English teacher, I know I have issues with quotation marks and parentheses. Comes with the territory of engineering/programming.)
My question concerns usage. When you say “diffuses the controversy”, is that right? Could you mean “defuses” instead? Is each correct, but conveying some nuance lost on those of us to whom Strunk and White are but distant memories?
Respectfully submitted,
A
“You defuse a dangerous situation by treating it like a bomb and removing its fuse; to diffuse, in contrast, is to spread something out: “Bob’s cheap cologne diffused throughout the room, wrecking the wine-tasting.”
Source
In the sentence I wrote, I chose “diffuse,” using it in the sense of “to weaken by mixing, to disperse”—in this case, Angle’s explanation is a valid justification for FOXNews’ releasing of the transcript, which I hope will serve to dilute (inevitable) strong claims that will seize on method in an effort to dispute content (as I note in the next sentence).
In this case, defuse would have worked just as well—maybe better—but it would have suggested a finality I wasn’t comfortable with.
Also, I’ll let you in a little secret: even English teachers make mistakes
That’s why God invented editors.
A couple of refinements, as premature posting syndrome seems to have set in:
I may be reacting more to usages I see elsewhere, as in “diffusing the situation”, rather than your “diffusing the controversy”, which makes more sense than I initially thought. I blame my wife, for forcing me to react to real life as I was composing.
I also realize that, in questioning authority, my own poor punctuation, choice of prepositions, and general lack of structure make me a prime target for ridicule. I accept that. But (improper use of conjunction to begin a sentence), as they say (lack of antecedent for pronoun), ”Enquiring minds want to know” (more violations than I can enumerate).
Wow, no wonder people respect you so much. You replied while I was appending myself. Thanks.
To anyone stumbling into this unintentionally hijacked comment thread, I would advise you to especially note Jeff’s now ironic observation in his last paragraph, concerning the substitution of form for content.
My work here is done.
Don’t sweat it, Alan. Things around here tend to be rather loose. I appreciate your dropping by!
Here’s one, Jeff. In Clinton’s extreme urgency to pursue the Al Qaeda threat, he accidentally forgot to mention it in his last address to Congress on National Security Policy. Ain’t that a kick? I think bin Laden got two mentions in there, and Taliban even got brief exposure. To listen to Clarke, Clinton was keenly aware of the terrorist threat and was poised to take action when SCOTUS appointed Bush President. You sure wouldn’t know it from the report, though. But he was probably really, really busy lining up book deals.
What’s the difference between defuse and diffuse? That’s what I say, what’s the f****n difference.
Sorry, I meant f****n’.
Jeff:
You can’t be serious.
First, you fall for the ol’ Fox/Limbaugh/Hannity/Moron gotcha’ trick of holding out the off-the-cuff, puff & unattributed (at least Clarke thought it’d be at the time) statements of a career employee–any career employee, however disgruntled–as devastatingly contradicting thoughtful, serious evaluations that will be attached to his name for eternity.
Then, you confound the form-over-substance aspect of the memo affair (nice Fox link, again, by the way). Dude, the substance was the illegality; the form was the politicizing of a polical matter, confirming judges.
I guess that’s why so many regard you a such a funny guy.*
Damn, I love the smell of desperation in the morning. It smells like victory.
*You are hilarious, really, just mostly mistaken. And whaddup with the socialism-jones? You’re a teacher, right? So when’s the last time you didn’t suckle at the public tit, or shit in the public trough? Or, hell, attend a public school? Just asking, because I care.
Pardon, that should read “politicizing of a political matter.” Just in case we’re being graded on this, as some of the above appear to believe.
Bloggerhead —
1. Of course I’m serious.
2. You’re confusing me with someone else who posted something else. Read my criticism of Clarke again. It takes the form of a question—and I think it’s a fair one.
3. Re: content vs. form… There was nothing illegal about the memo leaks, DNC protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. And it remains the case that the content of those memos is where the meat is. At least as far as I’m concerned.
Same thing is happening here with the Democratic reaction to the release of the press backgrounder and the Clarke email. Just read Josh Marshall today.
4. I teach at a private university. And the last three schools I attended were private universities: The University of Denver, Cornell (School of Criticism and Theory), and Johns Hopkins.
5. I admit to taking a shit in the public library once, but I blame Taco Bell for that horrific encounter with the public trough.