Ok, the so-called contradictory background briefing of 8/02, so who was Clarke speaking for? You might think that a Dem would dismiss this by saying Clarke was speaking for the White House not for himself. Not a bad argument. (I prefer to say that the facts in the briefing are largely true, but leave out a great deal of the story, and I think I'm right, no spin.)
So a statement like this might not surprise -
"[E]thically journalists are bound to such arrangements. However that doesn't seem to be the case. Here is what the preamble to the Clarke backgrounder transcript says:
The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution... [Emphasis mine.].
In other words the agreement to keep Clarke's comments "on background" applied to the White House, not to Clarke. . . . Indeed, Clarke's own comments confirm that Clarke himself didn't feel like he was speaking for himself but for the White House. So the release of the content of that briefing didn't betray Clarke at all. . . . "
Now whose words are these? The ones that say it was not Clarke speaking for himself, but for the White House? Why none other than Jonah Goldberg of National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
So, since they are not Clarke's statements, rather the White House's, where's the contradiction?