You probably already know that they used to burn witches. This particularly unsavory form of social cleansing resulted in the death in Europe of an estimated half-million people (mostly women) between the mid sixteenth and late seventeenth centuries. The reasons behind this were that witches were the agents of Satan, sent by him to do his Evil Works. So, you might well ask, how exactly did they know who was a witch and who wasn't? Was it the way they dressed, or the color of their hair? Was there a large "W" tattooed on their foreheads? (now there's an interesting idea...) No, someone, somewhere around that time dreamed up a fiendishly effective way of distinguishing a witch from a True Believer: It was called "ducking".
Ducking was the practice of tying the right thumb of an accused witch to their left toe, then thus constrained, throwing them into a river or some other suitable body of water. If they sank, then they were innocent (although presumably few who sank lived long enough to take much comfort from that fact). If they floated, obviously they were a witch, and so they would be carted off and burned at the stake. Of course, in a last ditch (but inevitably futile) attempt to save themselves, some of the accused would blurt out the names of neighbors, friends, even family members who they would declare really were witches; thus ensuring an plentiful supply of accused people for the next ducking.
I was reminded of this barbaric ritual the other day while reading about the latest wave of the White House's ongoing character assassination of Richard Clarke. It seems that they are indulging in their own version of "ducking" by accusing him of everything from political collusion and profiteering to perjury and racism, even casting vague, unsubstantiated slurs on his sexual proclivities. Just like the witches, his accusers have made the assumption (apparently also believed by the majority of the public) that he is, in fact, guilty of at least questionable motives. If he continues to float under the combined weight of these ad hominem attacks it would surely be proof that his motives were sinister? If, however, they keep attacking him long enough he will surely drown eventually.
One might perhaps feel sorry for Mr. Clarke at being placed in such an untenable position, or perhaps feel that he's getting richly enough rewarded for taking the fall in this situation. But I suggest that he has demonstrated something that the Bushies didn't predict. On television he consistently appears calm, reasonable, confident, articulate, and yes, believable. So much so that many people are finally become incensed at the ducking he is enduring. Whatever his personal motives, the questions he has raised about the Bush administration dropping the ball before 9/11, and perhaps more seriously, their true rationale for invading Iraq, need to be examined and answered honestly. There's enough corroborating evidence from Paul O'Neil, General Hugh Shelton and several others to show that his accusations aren't simply groundless. Through his book and his testimony, he has metaphorically accused Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and especially Rice of also being "witches"; maybe they need a ducking of their own...
- Trendar