No – we know liberal media bias is just a figment of our imagination. It isn’t real:
Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff and Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank are in awe of Dick Clarke. On Wednesday’s Hardball on MSNBC, Isikoff described Clarke’s testimony as “highly effective” and maintained that though “there was a rather furious effort by the White House and some of the Republican commissioners to dent his credibility,” it didn’t work: “I don’t think they succeeded. And I thought the apology that he began with was, was actually a brilliant stroke.” *snip article*
A bit later, Matthews proposed: “But here we have this guy testifying, Richard Clarke, who’s pretty focused in what he is trying to do here. He’s trying to impeach the efforts overall of the U.S. government and the attempts by the politicians leading our government to really try to do a serious job by saying, ‘Hey, look, I thought of this.'”
Milbank: “Yeah I mean if you, if you, well there’s been a bit of self-aggrandizement in, he’s taking credit for an awful lot of things. But if you think about it, his critique is devastating. He said essentially that September 11th could have been prevented, that President Bush did not care about terrorism before September 11th and didn’t do the right things after September 11th. This undermines the whole Bush administration. So what they really have to do, they, they rather than just take on argument by argument, they just have to pull the rug out from under him and completely try to undermine his credibility. That’s what you saw some of the commission members doing today.”
And the WaPo puts out a hit piece today on Condi Rice (courtesy of Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus). Rich Lowry from NRO fisks their little hatchet job. In the meantime, Time runs it’s own little piece about Richard Clarke’s alleged contradictions.
The GOP, smartly, is firing back at this grandstanding narcissist. They want Clarke’s congressional testimony from July 2002 declassified. Good for them.