Richard Clarke, Meet Linda Tripp
The American Thinker
March 29th, 2004
<font size=4>
Democrats, it would seem, have developed a sudden new sense of protectiveness for those who tell tales out of school. Anyone who remembers the name Linda Tripp cannot help but be amused at the Democrats rushing forward to decry the “trashing” of Richard Clarke. Where were these same Democrats when Linda Tripp was vilified on a daily basis?
It is worth taking a few moments to consider the two cases in a comparative light.
Alleged Offense
Clarke broke with over two hundred years of tradition, and
revealed the national security deliberations of
professional non-political career civil service advisers
to the President and his chief aides. In doing so, he
ensured that future Presidents will never be able to rely
on their staff to respect the confidentiality previous
Presidents of both parties have enjoyed. Certain views or
potential courses of action may unexpressed, as a result
of the threat of future publicity from a tell-tale aide.
Clarke also reportedly contradicted previous (so far
secret) testimony and background briefings he previously
provided. Claims in his book have also been found to be at
variance with the facts.
Tripp was asked by Monica Lewinsky to perjure herself, so as to protect their former boss, Bill Clinton, from the discovery of his sexual dalliance with a young woman entrusted to his care as an intern. To avoid being set up as a fall-guy, Tripp prudently tape recorded telephone calls from Lewinsky, who had attempted to suborn perjury. She thus “betrayed” the “friendship” of someone who wanted her to commit a felony to benefit the “friend.”
Nature of Criticism
Clarke’s writings and testimony before the 9/11 Commission
have been subjected to comparison with his previous
writings and testimony, some of which have been, or have
been proposed to be, newly declassified or released.
Clarke’s motivation in writing his book has been
questioned, in that his publisher has launched one of the
most successful and highly-coordinated publicity campaigns
in publishing history, encompassing moving the timing of
publication to match his 9/11 Commission testimony, and
tying-in sister company CBS’s premier showcase venue,
Sixty Minutes. Clarke stands to earn a million dollars or
more. He has, in response, promised to donate an
unspecified “portion” of his earnings to the families of
9/11 victims and military survivors of the Afghan
campaign. The most partisan critics of Clarke have gone so
far as to call him a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal.
Linda Tripp was also called a backstabber, betrayer, and disloyal. Her tape recordings spoke for themselves, and were uncontradicted. Tripp was accused of wanting to profit from a book, allegedly being “in it for the money,” although no book was ever proposed, written, or published. Additionally, Tripp’s morality, weight, and personal appearance were savagely ridiculed. John Goodman, a portly male actor, donned a dress and mocked her appearance and her very femininity on Saturday Night Live, on a regular basis.
Consequences
Clarke has dominated the past week’s news, and his charges
have been respectfully reported by nearly all of the major
media. Only some of the media have subjected his charges
to comparison with his earlier testimony and backgrounder
views. There have been no reports of Clarke’s pension or
retirement benefits being challenged. The size of Clarke’s
advance from his publisher and his potential profits from
his book have only today been revealed in a leak to
Drudge. Clarke’s close connection to John Kerry’s foreign
policy advisor (the two men jointly teach a course at
Harvard’s Kennedy School) has been barely noted, and is
not the subject of daily commentary in most of the press.
No ridicule of Clarke’s appearance, weight, or masculinity
has so far come to our attention. If Saturday Night Live
has plans to hire Roseanne Barr or some other fat
comedienne to mock Clarke’s weight, appearance, and
masculinity, no publicity has yet been generated for the
comedic festivities.
Linda Tripp was fired from her job with the federal government. Later, following litigation, a large settlement was paid to her, acknowledging that her firing had been improper. Unable to move about in public without cruel taunting, she subjected herself to a weight loss regimen and plastic surgery, to drastically change her appearance. The costs of this were reportedly borne by sympathizers, probably motivated by their animus toward Bill Clinton. Linda Tripp subsequently developed, and then recovered from, cancer.
Presidential aide James Carville added to his fame and reputation by relentlessly demonizing Linda Tripp. So far, no Republican equivalent of James Carville attack-dog tactics has appeared.
For some small things, we can be grateful.
<font size=3>
Thomas Lifson
americanthinker.com |
