Month: March 2004

CARDINAL QUESTIONS

Not since March 2000 have the St. Louis Cardinals seen a roster with as many new faces as their 2004 edition. Four years ago Darryl Kile, Fernando Vina, Mike Matheny, and Jim Edmonds donned Cardinal gear for the first time and transformed a team that had been Mark McGwire’s traveling sideshow into a club that would make the playoffs three straight seasons and reach a pair of National League Championship Series. Alas, that amalgam of high-priced talent wasn’t enough to get the Cards to the World Series. And despite all the changes for the upcoming campaign — manager Tony LaRussa’s ninth in St. Louis — the general consensus seems to be that the Cardinals are playing for third place.

The Houston Astros’ off-season acquisition of Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens has given the National League’s Central Division arguably six of the ten best pitchers in baseball. The Astros will follow the erstwhile Yankee tandem with Roy Oswalt and Wade Miller, while Mark Prior and Kerry Wood will contend for the Cy Young in Chicago Cub uniforms. All of which means a Cardinal rotation of Matt Morris, Woody Williams, Jeff Suppan, Chris Carpenter, and Jason Marquis will hardly have teeth chattering among pennant aspirants.

St. Louis will audition its new squad at AutoZone Park this Friday and Saturday, when the Cardinals face their top farm team, our Memphis Redbirds. As you acquaint yourself with all the new faces, here are a few storylines to follow:

LaRussa’s last? The Cardinal skipper enters his ninth season in St. Louis with a contract that expires with the campaign’s final pitch. The vibe in and around Busch Stadium is that LaRussa — forever unable to live up to Whitey Herzog’s standard in the eyes of many — is prepared for a career shift. Having taken the Cards to the postseason in four of his eight years in St. Louis, LaRussa’s recent track record pales only when compared with those of Joe Torre and Bobby Cox. He won a division title in 1996 with a team inferior in talent to his 2004 model. The challenges mounted by Houston and Chicago should further energize the manager with the third-most wins in franchise history.

Leading off . . . ? As much as Cardinal Nation wanted Fernando Vina to be that prototypical leadoff man, he really never was. Over his three full seasons in St. Louis, his walk totals were 36, 32, and 44 (you’d like to see close to 100 from your table-setter). His on-base percentage over those years: .380, .357, .333 (the standard being .400). With Vina now a Detroit Tiger, LaRussa’s first lineup question is the leadoff position. Newly acquired second baseman Marlon Anderson appeared to be the leading candidate at the opening of spring training, and former Redbird Kerry Robinson (a reserve outfielder the last three seasons) has been in the mix. But Tony Womack — acquired in a deal with Boston March 21st — appears ready to seize the slot, as long as he’s fully recovered from off-season arm surgery. Considering the lumber lower in the batting order, the leadoff man will be critical for this club.

Who ya gonna call? Here are two words that should summarize the condition of last year’s Cardinal bullpen: Jeff Fassero. With the lobbin’ lefty comfortably out of town, late-inning St. Louis leads are already safer. The addition of Ray King (who came from Atlanta in the J.D. Drew trade) and Julian Tavarez will mean a pair of inning-eating middle-relief options LaRussa didn’t have a year ago. A healthy Jason Isringhausen to close on Opening Day is a dramatic upgrade from this time last season.

Budgeting a contender? Back in February, St. Louis ownership made Albert Pujols the first $100 million player in 112 years of Cardinal baseball, a development that would send shockwaves considering Pujols has merely three years under his belt . . . were it not for the fact those three years were unlike the start of any career in the game’s history. With Pujols locked up for the next seven years, focus will shift toward keeping some of the high-priced talent around him in Cardinal uniforms. Shortstop Edgar Renteria (.330 and a second straight Gold Glove in 2003) is at the top of the priority list. Considering Scott Rolen is in the second year of a long-term deal, the likelihood of centerfielder Jim Edmonds reaching the final year of his contract (2007) with St. Louis appears less and less likely. The reality of economics — at least outside the walls of Yankee Stadium — tends to rear its ugly head as stars reach their market potential. If Renteria can be added to a Pujols/Rolen nucleus, the Cardinal lineup should be among the league’s best well beyond 2006 and the New Stadium Era in St. Louis.

Excerpts from Floor Speech by the Senate Majority Leader attacking the former counter-terrorism chief’s testimony (3-26-2004)

There has been much fulminating in the media and by some senators on the other side about a new book by a former State Department civil servant named Richard Clarke. In this book, released for sale by the parent company of the CBS network, Mr. Clarke makes the outrageous charge that the Bush administration, in its first seven months in office, failed to adequately address the threat posed by Osama bin Laden. . . .

There are five points that I find absolutely inexplicable about Mr. Clarke’s performance this past week.

First, in an e-mail to the national security adviser four days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke expressed alarm that when the era of national unity begins to crack, an effort to assign responsibility for the 9/11 attacks will begin. In that e-mail, Mr. Clarke proceeds to lay out in detail a defense of his own actions before the attack and those of the entire administration.

Mr. Clarke was clearly consumed by the desire to dodge any blame for the 9/11 attacks, while at that same moment rescuers were still searching the rubble of the World Trade Center for survivors. In my mind this offers perfect insight as to what drove him to write his book.

Second, in the August of 2002 interview I just referred to [a background briefing Mr. Clarke gave to reporters], Mr. Clarke gave a thorough account of the Bush administration’s active policy against Al Qaeda. Mr. Clarke now explains away that media performance by suggesting that he was simply telling lies in an interview as a loyal administration official.

A loyal administration official? Does Mr. Clarke understand the gravity of the issues being reviewed by the 9/11 commission and the gravity of the charges he has made? If, in the summer of 2001, he saw the threat from Al Qaeda as grave as he now says it was, and if he found the response of the administration as inadequate as he now says it was, why did he wait until the Sunday, March 21, 2004, to make his concerns known?

There is not a single public record of Mr. Clarke making any objection whatsoever in the period leading up to or following the 9/11 attacks. No threat to resign. No public protest. No plea to the president, the Congress, or the public, to heed the advice he now says was ignored. If Mr. Clarke held his tongue because he was loyal, then shame on him for putting politics above principle. But if he has manufactured these charges for profit and political gain, he is a shame to this government.

I, myself, have fortunately not had the opportunity to work with such an individual who could write solicitous and self-defending e-mails to his supervisor, the national security adviser, and then by his own admission lie to the press out of a self-conceived notion of loyalty only to reverse himself on all accounts for the sale of a book.

Third, Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath. In July 2002, in front of the Congressional joint inquiry on the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke testified under oath that the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by Al Qaeda during its first seven months in office.

It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media. But if he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far more serious matter. As I mentioned, the intelligence committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke’s previous testimony declassified so as to permit an examination of Mr. Clarke’s two different accounts. Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied before Congress.

Fourth, notwithstanding Mr. Clarke’s efforts to use his book first and foremost to shift blame and attention from himself, it is also clear that Mr. Clarke and his publishers adjusted the release date of his book in order to make maximum gain from the publicity around the 9/11 hearings. Assuming the controversy around this series of events does in fact drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make quite a bit of money for his efforts.

I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, trading on his insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on Sept. 11, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce any plan to personally profit from this book.

Finally, It is understandable why some of the families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks find Mr. Clarke’s performance appealing. Simple answers to a terrible tragedy; to the very human desire to find an answer why; why on that beautiful fall day two and one half years ago a series of events happened that shattered their lives forever.

In his appearance before the 9/11 commission, Mr. Clarke’s theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. In my view it was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation. Mr. Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct, but that is all.