The fact is the guy is unhinged

Clarke is an opportunist with sour grapes over his treatmeny by the Bush administration.

You guys need to moderate these sorts of sentences. He might be unhinged, and he appears to be an opportunist, but those are both subjective viewpoints.

He also doesn't appear to be particularly smart

Really? Unusually, I actually saw some of this stuff on TV - I was watching our nearest equivalent to PBS and it had a US news programme which had significant coverage of the public hearing. I thought Clarke came across as very smart and pretty eloquent (especially compared to... Bush, for instance). It was harder to judge his credibility, but he appeared to believe what he was saying.

The most interesting thing on the news programme was the unanimous view of the two panel members (a Republican and a Democrat) interviewed afterwards, who both couldn't understand why the Bush admin wouldn't have Condoleeza Rice do a public hearing, given she is credible and speaks well.

Marv, I can't disagree with anything you've said. Absolutely correct on all counts. Thanks for providing a cogent, non-combative perspective.

I have a very hard time reconciling the juxtaposition of the book release and the investigation. Clarke loses big credibility, in my view. If he were truly interested in being heard, why not wait to publish the book? He had to know his credibility would suffer because of the timing. Where were his convictions when he had knowledge of the Al Qaeda threat prior to 9/11? Why didn't he scream it to the hills? He simply took no for an answer, apparently. Not my idea of a leader. Only now, after the fact, when he's selling a book, he has conviction. Gotta love it.

Cam -
I, personally, think the guy is bright. Which may be why he's so wounded.
I also think any analysis of what he's said in the past, what he says in his book (and omits saying, which is a lot of what he's said in the past) shows that the guy is unhinged -- not stark staring mad, but not exactly ... well, hinged.
I mean, he *knows* what he's said in the past -- he doesn't expect that when he contradicts himself now for political gain and brownie points from the Left that these flagrant, glaring, bald faced contradictions are going to be mentioned? You've got to be slightly unright in the head.
Not to be aware that you were going to come across as a cranky, self-absorbed ex-bureaucrat, thowing "told you so" stones out of spite -- during an election year, at the height of the 9/11 inquiry... and therefore be put on double secret probation -- He's not a lunatic, he's certainly not stupid, he just ain't all there somehow; ergo my professionally accredited, board-certified, take-it-to-the-bank diagnosis: unhinged.

And I don't claim to be objective, just better in my subjectivity than everybody else. Oh, and humble; can't forget humble. :p

JP:

JP,

I heard some talk about how his private testimony to the panel was totally different than his public testimony. Will we get access to this? I was watching a little yesterday and they were bringing up what Dr. Rice said in her private testimony so I would imagine it will come out, no?

But wasn't the book held up by the administration for months?

It's simply coincidental that the book came out when it did. In the publishing trades, it was said that there were internal hangups with Clarke's publisher and that now was the time that it came out. When writing and editing this book, it was in no way aimed at the 9/11 hearings - I don't even think Clarke knew there were going to be hearings when he began the book.

Secondly, almost everyone, Republicans included, has said this guy was a hands-on player. He was the terrorism czar, so Cheney and Rice are full of it. Yes, he appeased Bush, but only because the man didn't want to be FIRED.

All-in-all, as was said in the news last night, this book will be the dagger in the Bush Administration's heart, because all Bush has in his favor is this so-called war on terror. All else has crumbled around him.

Marv..I congratulate you on a cogent and well thought out analysisy Most elected officials are self serving. And, what is wrong with a President admitting that things could improve? Would that not be refreshing in light of the past two administrations?

Like you, Marv, as I have grown older, I am either seeing more inconsistencies than before, or I am now becoming aware they have been there all the time. Accusations toward the administration or toward Mr. Clarke without factual data are simply unfounded opinions and not worth the words they waste. As a veteran of the political scene, I can attest that the most popular mode of response by those in power when anyone questions a decision is to attack them and say they are misinformed, disgruntled, profiteering, or some other derogatory term rather than try to solve the problem. Taking responsibility is almost a thing of the past. Political Correctness dictates that we are all victims of something; a concept I abhor. Give me ONE example since the 60s of a President 'fessing up to ANYTHING?

I will give Mr. Clarke points for two thing that were positive in nature; the apology, sincere or not, was a good touch, and the suggestion as to how the incident of 9/11 might have been avoided. Although I would like to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, I find it difficult to understand why "Dr" Rice would not appear in front of the public hearing. Not to offer additional facts, but simply to appear to be totally honest and forthcoming. Her interview with Sean Hannity showed a very nervous, uncertain individual, and he was on her side!! Using the "separation of the branches of government" as a reason is the same tactic that Mr. Clinton tried that upset the Republicans so much.

Not taking sides; just tired of the spin.

That's right Bob, I think after awhile you see the same baseless things happening over & over again. Another thing that bothers me is the arrogance of all of the administrations. They won't come down to earth enough to say things didn't work right, they are sorry, & will learn from the mistakes to do better. The average person has enough common sense to know things don't always run perfectly or turn out as planned. Just as those two women on Good Morning America (?) were so appreciative of Clark's apology, the American public would also. It's just that the group in power knows if they admit even a small amount of fault, the opposing group will seize on it, blow it up and do everything to turn it to their advantage to show the in-power group as inept. It's another example that neither side gives a damn about what people think, know, or who has suffered. They just want remain perfect in the eyes of those gullible enough to believe it. Sad to say, it looks like there are a lot of gullible people out there.

This is the most delicious thread I've followed in a long time. I hope all you republicans will sleep better now that you've taken turns taking shots at this guy and congratulating each other on your accuracy.

Man talk about preaching to the converted.

Hm... I'm thinking of new names for this forum... Grand..., naw can't come up with anything catchy.

I don't have anything intelligent to add in regard to Mr. Clarke - he seems to speak well enough on his own. I'm just making waves so you can reorient your flaming addresses in my direction if you like.

Rule #1 of bookselling that Bush et al don't understand: to an author, any press is good press.

Rule #2: particularly BAD press when applied to rule #1.

I have no dog in this fight, but here's what it looks like to a neutral observer; " I was not truthful before, because it was expected of me by the administration." The natural follow up question is; "Can we expect you to be truthful now even if the truth may not be beneficial to your publisher?"

I have a general distrust of politicos. The role of the wounded, sincere ex-public servant seems to me disingenuous at best. The reality is that no political party in this country is responsible for the Sept. 11 attack.

Clark feels personally responsible? He feels like he "let us down?" Mr. Clark needs to get over himself.

dd74 -- c'mon, coincidental? I discussed just this point w/ an ex of mine at Simon & Schuster... whose point was "yeah, and it'll be a coincidence when the sun comes up at dawn tomorrow."

Clarke was a hands-on player, and he was wrong (as was everybody else, if you're keeping score at home) -- trumpeting this whole "cyberterrorism" threat... has anybody who is so pro-Clarke on this thread actually read anything this guy has said, or is it "well, he's anti-Bush, therefore he must be right"?

He's cast himself as this vox clamantis in deserto -- as everybody in his disgraced bureaucrat position does; and b/c he's anti-Bush (right now, but not two years ago, mysteriously) he MUST be telling the truth NOW. What about his indictments of Clinton? What about his support of Bush? What about the fact that he claims Dr. (she earned it -- International Studies, Univ. of Denver, 1981 -- so, Joe, your snide attitude broacasts prejudice, ignorance, petty malice or a combination of the foregoing) Rice hadn't even heard of al Qaeda until he mentioned them to her, but yet she has public remarks from at least as early as 2000 mentioning them and the threat they pose -- will NOTHING mar the credibility of someone taking a shot at Bush? And this is THE GUY who will put a dagger in Bush's heart?

NFW. It will work to Bush's benefit -- this guy is another crank who tried to fit the world into his reduced-responsiblity fiefdom of cybersecurity, when it was much larger than that. The Bush admin wasn't foolish enough to let him redefine the problem "down" to that monomanical level so he could have control of it all.

Guys, there are two Dems on the panel that, in all rights, should've recused themselves. The Dems got Kissinger off w/ some bull***** and would use this (as Clarke has) for a forum to pull a stunt if Dr. Rice were to testify publicly. Do you not think that, given her position as National Security Advisor she would be put in a position by those antagonistic to the administration that she would have to decline to answer b/c her answers might implicate current information? Many of these people know intel that she knows and is unable to disclose; how easy would it be to phrase questions that would put her in a d/k/i bind?How stupid would it be to put yourself in that position? So, play into our hands and let us appear to embarrass you or we'll just wantonly imply you've got something to hide. Nice.

But that's all the pro-Clarke case has -- implications and innuendo; no fact. Keep throwing chaff in the air; keep dissembling. The deafening silence on the merits of Clarke's comments means you know you don't have a case. No principled, informed rebuttal, just attacks on motives and obtuse innuendo. We are unimpressed. Enough with the ad hominem generalities; I can get that from people who actually want to know what they're talking about, and therefore whose opinions I value.

JP

JP - that's a well-written diatribe, but unfortunately it smacks so much of partisanship that I feel I'm listening to Bush's press secretary.

If in the least, I'll say that there will probably be a good amount of conjecture in Clarke's book. But no more than has come from Cheney, Rice and Bush himself about Clarke, which is the wrong way to go about the administration's defense of itself.

One good thing the administration has done is it has brought out the big guns to counter this book - as they should. They have a lot to defend in light of virtually everyone's interest in this book and the fact that nonpartisan individuals have stated by-and-large that they think Clarke is credible.

It comes down to this: Bush's mind was more on Iraq than on building threats from al Queda. Might he have stopped the attacks, YES - he might have. But he was distracted. But that is also reasoning based on he receiving accurate information and his ability to execute a solution.

As for a dagger in the heart - it is, because the press keeps trumping up the importance of Clarke's book, which has the White House on the defensive - another golden apple to the press. The end result will be Joe Schmoe American not being able to see the forest for the trees; he/she will become emotional about this by leaning toward Bush being preoccupied by Iraq for various reasons of Daddy and Son vengeance, oil reserves, nation building, unneeded stability in the region, etc.

If I were in the cabinet, I would forgo Clarke. Who cares about him? He most probably is a disgruntled ex-employee who is half-crazy anyway. But that doesn't matter. What Bush and company need to do is explain how difficult this war on terrorism is and what positives have come from our involvement in the war, plus the measures that will be used to counter further attacks.

Personal attacks don't bode well for Americans - particularly in an election year. They should stop attacking the man and attack the issues in his book.

But ...but....what will happen to the political system if we take away the right to make personal attacks? Egad!!

BTW...again, not taking sides, trying to be fair; to claim that GWB has been "distracted", and to say that Clinton did "nothing", I ask...How about all the ado about nearly nothing that was fired Bill's way? I wonder if that was distraction that just may have slowed things up in the "War Against Terrorism"? As disgusting as the idea of an Oval Office BJ is, wasn't this blown completely out of proportion?

The president says "Had I known...." The question then becomes..Should he have known? and, once answered, then perhaps Why did he not know? Fault of advisors? Preoccupation with other agenda items? There is SO much on a president's plate that the individual cannot hope to know everything.

Point being..It is easier to ask questions than to find answers.

Both parties have a LOT to answer for.

JP, You're a smart guy, is there any evidence that would convince you that Bush A) intended to invade Iraq from day one and leaned on Clark and others to blame 9/11 on Iraq? Or B) neglected the terrorism issue prior to 9/11?

I seriously think that if Cheney broke down tomorrow in a fit of guilt/remorse, resigned from office and admitted to all of the BS leading up to Iraq and the facts of Clarks assertions, you and Sean Hannity would chalk it up to the ravings of a disgruntled former employee w/ an agenda, and begin to highlight all of his BS statements in the past, (the ones that I highlight now). ;)

Marv, thanks for your perspective. Very well written!

Let's see..Clarke is a disgruntled employee...Paul Oneill was a disgruntled employee..read Suskind's book: "The Price of Loyalty:George W. Bush and the Education of Paul Oneill", Kevin Phillips book "American Dynasty:Aristocracy, Fortune, and the politics of Deceit in the House of Bush".

Did I miss any? Do I detect a trend here? Not everyone can be a disgruntled employee........

Not that I smell a rat...maybe a whole bunch of them.

All I know is... and this IS saying a lot for me....


That I AM disgruntled.

A staunch republican for many years. Not necessarily disappointed in the present administration, but disappointed in every administration as far back as I can remember; that makes it JFK. Was in Grammar school then.

How did we (Americans) get so screwed up? It used to be if you kick sand in our face, you get hammered. Now we are the world's policeman (for any one of a number of reasons), and that is getting out of hand.

I keep thinking that this would be a better country if we concentrated on this country, and let the rest of the world sort themselves out. I know that's pie in the sky, but I see problems here in this country that the money spent overseas could solve in a heartbeat.

I have this wrapped around the axel feeling.

OK, I'm awake now, and will probably regeret sending this after I have coffee.

Bravo to that. Sounds like what many parts of the world have been saying for years. Problem is that the US is very dependent on other parts of the world, albeit for oil (middle east/Canada/South America/Russia et al), gas (Canada), trade (Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, Britain, Europe - I think I have those in order) and security (used to be primarily USSR, now with evolving technology, it's every country in the world with a government that happens to look sideways at the US).

Unfortunately, long ago the US developed a habit of dabbling in different ways in different parts of the world in an attempt to be comfortable about the continuing supply of those necessities. It's that dabbling that has pissed a lot of people off because a lot of it wasn't really well thought out from a long term perspective.

After you've gone around indescriminately wacking hornet's nests you may have to wait quite a while before you can walk peacefully in the forest again. But step one clearly is to stop wacking them.