IF THIS IS THE BEST THEY CAN DO...

The right finally has an effective response to the allegations of Richard Clarke. And it comes from... Ann Coulter. (link via Jack, who should know better, hehe)

It's good that someone out there is being, uh, coherent, cuz the administration sure hasn't been!

So what does Adam's Apple have to say for herself? It's sad when weekly columnists weigh in on issues like this, because they're always one or two debunked charges behind, at least:

ARE YOU sitting down? Another ex-government official who was fired or demoted by Bush has written a book that ... is critical of Bush! Eureka! The latest offering is Richard Clarke's new CBS-Viacom book, "Against All Enemies," which gets only a 35 on "rate a record" because the words don't make sense and you can't dance to it.

Blah blah, Clarke stayed on for more than two years after that, and such.

Then she wastes a whopping five paragraphs of her column equating Clarke to . . . Gary Aldrich? I mean, even putting aside the equating of allegations about sex and allegations about, you know, the administration's entire war on terrorism from a knowledged insider who wasn't just in the loop, but was the loop, Gary Aldrich is a Republican shill, and everybody knows that. His latest game has been to label Kerry a possible Communist. For more on him, go here and here.

The rest of her incredible takedown of Richard Clarke amounts to seven paragraphs of hilarious race-baiting, all based on one sentence at the beginning of a chapter, where Clarke observes Condi Rice apparently being clueless about Al Qaeda in January of 2001. Of course, later in that chapter Clarke describes an interchange with Paul Wolfowitz in which he is equally clueless and skeptical regarding the Al Qaeda threat, but Coulter doesn't accuse Clarke of anti-Semitism.

Of course, she runs into a problem in the middle of her race-baiting (which says more about her views than Clarke's, I might add):

All this was while Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida."

Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us. (emphases mine)

Apparently Coulter wants us to think that Clarke was worried about dates on bank accounts and extra water supplies, but what she hides behind her "fretting about Y2K" derision is that Clarke was working with the Clinton administration to try to stop, you know, an actual terrorist threat, that being a major bombing within the country. Of course, Coulter doesn't seem to have much of a problem with domestic bombings, having once joked "My only regret with Tim McVeigh is that he didn't go to the New York Times building." Cheap shot? Of course! How bout one more: The proximity of her views to those of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph also deserves mention.

Furthermore, it would break poor Coulty's heart to know that Richard Clarke, if he is anything, is not a liberal. He was originally appointed by a certain actor-turned-president. No, not Martin Sheen. He worked closely with four presidents, three of whom were Republican, two of whom were named Bush. Furthermore, he is an independent living in Virginia, who votes Republican. If that's a liberal, than god knows what a moderate or a conservative is.

All this being said, you can probably guess as to my explanation for why these points haven't been heard elsewhere.

UPDATE: Holy Christmas, did Bob Novak, who at least feigns credibility from time to time, take Coulter's bait? Wow, this can only mean they're quite desperate...