Richard Clarke, what to make of him?
 

I am trying to figure this guy out. I'll just leave it at that and ask for your observations.

what's to make of him? He's a pretty bright guy that's certainly shooting from the hip to the great discomfort of certain people. His statements/observations and the circumstances surrounding them seem straight forward enough...

I am referring to the two distinctly different statements he has now made, The following is from August 2002. You gotta admit this is a total 180.

"First week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources -- for example, for covert action, -- five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda."
"They changed the strategy from one of rollback of Al-Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al-Qaeda."

His political consultant and best friend is the Kerry campaign manager.

He is selling/promoting a book that (OMG!!!!!) trashes Bush and Reagan, the two republican presidents that tried to get him to take a stand on the terror threat.

The timing of the release of the book, and the appearances on every available talk show, just prior to the appearance in front of Congress is just too staged for anyone having two brain cells in close formation to not question. Even Imus got it.

I think it is obvious that by not trashing Clinton anywhere in his self effacing distribe under oath, he betrays his alligiences. Just another Clinton apologist.

Sorry. A failed hypocrite trying to retire on his book about his own failures as an 'expert'.

The company that owns his publishing house also owns CBS, the station and network that gave him '60 Minutes' of free advertising for his book.

I know this will inflame the liberal left here, thereby setting new records here for the longest replies with cut and paste liberal diatribe from the Workers' Daily website.


Flame it on.....


P.S. Yes, I AM laughing....

I don't know if it's a political thing. He is obviously an intelligent man. He claims to have voted GWB in 2000. There is something besides politics going on here. Any psyche majors in here:) The movie A Perfect Mind comes to mind. It's like he has a ton of inner guilt here over 9/11 or something. being in charge during that must mess with your head, no?

I wouldn't be so dismissive - his tenure supposedly spanned five administrations (including that of King George I) and he developed a reputation in that time of being distinctly apolitical when it came to his recommendations. There was an interesting discussion about him and his history on NPR on Tuesday (I think it was on "The World", but it might've been one of the other programs). I think the guy is legit.

With regards to the timing, he has been waiting to release this book for some time but has supposedly been the victim of foot-dragging by the white house which needed to approve the text in order to determine any potential conflicts of national security interests (this is according to both he and his publisher). He obviously wants to sell his book and get publicity (I'll give you that one - duh), but I think the allegations of a larger consipracy theory just don't go anywhere or ultimately matter. Even if there is some sort of larger conspiracy to discredit the Bush administration, they brought it on themselves by giving him the ammunition necessary to do so.

They tried in vain to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (I REMEMBER these stories coming out personally just before the war started - do we all have such short memories?) and of course there is the "incontrivertable evidence" that Colin Powell's briefing mentioned in his address to the international community (which we later snubbed) and subsequently in press briefings. The same "incontrivertable evidence" that has mysteriously come to be untrue - gee, what a surprise! Hans Blix (remember him) made a statement about a week ago about this AGAIN, saying that he is fairly convinced that there never were WMDs in Iraq.

In the meantime, American soldiers continue to get their asses shot off in the name of lining the pockets of greedy U.S. oil and defense interests like Haliburton, with no valid agenda and no clear exit strategy STILL. If anybody with "two brain cells" as you put it can't figure out what's really going on here, then frankly they DESERVE the Bush administration.

At least you're right about your implication that Don Imus has two working brain cells!

"I think the guy is legit."

Which time? That's what I'm getting at.

I had never heard of Haliburton before the rebuiling of Iraq. Maybe I'm just dense an immune to the numerous beltway bandits around here but, jeez it's a pretty big company isn't it?
I had no idea how big. I love the various Haliburton PR ads that they run on AM DC TV. We see stuff that the rest of the country never sees....all aimed at like a handful of congressmen.

I'm with sing -
He's too often contradicted himself to the detriment of Bush to have any credibility IMHO. It just so happens that he's got an anti-Bush admin. book coming out at the time of the 9/11 Congressional investigation and the book happens to have all kinds of "Bush et. al. missed the boat" claims? C'mon. This guy was demoted by Bush and was warning about cyberterror (a "digital Pearl Harbor") from every rooftop he could mount -- he, like many others was dead wrong, and is simply another out-of-the-loop bureaucrat writing a "if they'd only done what *I* suggested the world would be a better place" epilogue.

Clarke in 2002:

CLARKE: January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. . . .

The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. . .

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

Clarke in 2002 says Bush quintupled the efforts of the Clinton administration -- granted, 5 times next-to-nothing is still... well, you get the point. Yet Clarke in 2004, an election year for the guy who demoted him and under whose watch Clarke's prognostications proved wrong, sings a different tune, conveniently denigrating Bush and revising the history of the Clintonistas and the Democratic party generally. Hmmm..

More from the same transcript:

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no [Clinton] plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the [Bush] administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

So what do I make of the guy? Well, he'll be a darling of the New York Times and the Washington Post for the next couple of days, until he completely implodes. And certain impervious-to-discredit ideologues will parrot Clarke for months. That's the kind of 15 minutes this jacka$$ deserves.

Incidentally, does it strike anyone else as odd that:

(1) Eight months of the Bush administration is being pilloried for its "failures" more than eight *years* of the Interregnum... If, on January 20, 2001 Bush had taken out Osama (i) people would've gone bat**** -- how can you do this? he's a Cowboy blah blah, unilateral murderer!, violation of "International Law" (Lord, how I chuckle at that one) and (ii) it would've been too late to prevent 9/11 -- the plan was laid and the hijackers were already in the country. The formative years for Osama and his minions were the Interregnum, when al-Qaeda metastasized and allied itself with terror groups all over the world. Clinton and his crew turned down several opportunities to seize OBL and to take decisive action against al-Qaeda and their fellow travellers, ostensibly for fear of "disrupting" the middle-east Peace Process (Yes, I'm laughing too, but it's a bitter, disillusioned laugh). I'm not going to tear up the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism "efforts" right now b/c then I become one of these 20/20 hindsight holier-than-thou schmucks; however, the de rigeur hindsight bashing of Bush invites such scrutiny to be applied to Clinton, who fares far poorer under that analysis.

(2) Our absolutely neutral, non-biased mainstream media (*coughmsnbccough*) gives us this nugget:

The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up.

And there is *absolutely no* desire among our middle-of-the-road, non-agenda-driven journalists to BLAME BUSH for things beyond his control -- I mean, Bush was GOVERNOR OF TEXAS in 1998 and he didn't "follow up" on the, uh ..... oh, wait.

(3) This gem from the lily-white, never partisan NY Daily News seems a bit off:

One event that panel members found galling was why there was no retaliation by either administration for the bombing of the destroyer Cole in early 2001.

(Daily)Newsflash -- the USS Cole was attacked October 12, 2000 -- during the Interregnum. What's next? W failed to foresee the Tet Offensive? JFK's assassination? Pearl Harbor?

JP

JP,

Do you think this guy had his ego crushed and flipped out? That's kinda what I'm thinking. To take him at his word is pointless since you don't know which set of words to take? I don't think this is political, I could be wrong there, I think it's personal.

Joel -
It's an interesting theory, and wouldn't be without precedent, but I don't know the guy well enough to say -- and I'm not going to read his book to find out. The fact is the guy is unhinged, and whether it's deliberate smearing or the results of pscyhological trauma is unimportant to me.

Clarke has earned a reputation-squashing; he should get it and then we can put him and his bologna behind us ... until the next guy w/ a W axe to grind steps up and 60 Minutes, NYT, Washington Post, etc. give him saturation coverage w/o first checking the backstory.

Side rant: I believe this is how a lot of the BUSH LIED crap got rolling -- someone in the media stands up, misquotes (Dowdifies, if you will) Bush or an administration official -- presumably deliberately b/c it's easy enough to check the source and get the quote right -- and WHAMMO! the allegations and accusations fly. The tedious process of actually checking the facts, reading the transcripts and publishing the "offending" quote -- accurately and in context -- requires too much attention span for most of the public, and is not in the tiniest bit interesting to those predisposed against W, fact be damned. At the end, there's a lingering residue of the original charge and it becomes part of the mantra. Yes, I believe this is deliberately done.

I think a shortcoming in the W administration is that they haven't been aggressive enough in countering spurious charges -- "staying above the fray" and all. For example, following 9/11 the administration specifically and categorically avoided blaming Clinton and his administration for allowing the OBL/al-Qaeda situation to fester and lead to 9/11, even though there's plenty of ore to mine there. It was a gentlemanly thing to do; but Bush misoverestimated the character of those who would attempt to revise history to cover their own a$$es. Because W didn't respond to fallacious, petty lies and attacks for so long, when he does respond, it's too conveniently called the "Republican Attack Machine". Cry me a river.

JP

Whatever this guy's agenda his timing is appauling.
He may be telling the truth but all of the noise around him makes him too easy to discredit.

Sounds a bit like the resident of 1600 Penn. Ave DC....

I just reread some of the morning NY Times. You know, just to get the view 'left' of Long Island....

It seems that everyone has blood on their hands. You, Me, GWB, GHWB, RR, Colin Powell, everyone except the Billary crowd.

I was overseas during their reign, and watched intelligence operatives killed because they were left hanging out to dry because the Clintons and their advisors extolled the merits of space intelligence (sattelites; Keyholes and Rhyolites) over people on the ground in-theatre intelligence.

The failure of this ideaology directly led to the intelligence failures of the late 90's and early '00's. We had lots of pictures from 40 miles up of training camps in the Arabian desert and Afghanistan, but not much on who and where they were going. Clarke was crying that there were dangers there, but had no hard evidence (beyond the grainy photos) or 'reliable' on scene intel to back it up.

I do feel for him. He knew what was coming, but not what was coming. That it WAS coming, but not when and where. You could see that in his apology to the victims yesterday.

But to lay it off on the administration that was at the wreck scene is an affont to those in the intelligence community who had their hands tied while watching friends killed in the service of their country during the Clinton administration.

Then, in front of Congress (and all those live TV cameras) to swear an oath of truth on the flag that these same civil servants died for and not to tell the WHOLE truth is an affront to us all.

He IS wrestling with his conscience. Why aren't Bill and Hillary? I doubt they understand their place in this crime. If they do, they'll stay quiet. If they don't, they'll stay ignorantly quiet. To us, this looks the same.

They have been remarkably quiet, haven't they.....

And just which administration tied the hands of operatives?

Whistleblowers are never popular, although many times they are correct in doing what they do, and take abuse for doing it. Ever work in Government? "Here, George, you talk to the press. Put a positive spin on things or (implied) you are out." So they do as they are told until it gets to a point they cannot sleep at night.

So who is right and who is wrong? Consider one individual who spent 30 years as an operative under multiple administrations vs: a number of newcomers into the arena. Which would you tend to believe, particularly when the newcomers try to paint the veteran as "disgruntled"?

There are three sides to every story..Yours, Mine, and somewhere in between is the truth.

"There are three sides to every story..Yours, Mine, and somewhere in between is the truth."

I hate this statement, it implies that no one is ever right, and that's just false.

Bob -
What it means is that he can be motivated to lie -- then (by the administration, which seems way too conveeeeenient, esp. that many of his accusations -- Bush asked him to look into the Iraq connections to 9/11 "agressively" -- have been discounted by other eyewitnesses) or now b/c he's got other minders pushing him to do so. Either way, he's on the record multiple times as expressly contradicting himself on very specific points -- so one time or the other, he was/is lying.

Joel - I'm in complete agreement. Is it me, or is the benefit of the doubt implied by that relativist statement never extended to those on the right side of the aisle...? Seriously, it may just be me that notices/believes that.

JP

Moneyguy;

I think I was pretty direct.

The Clinton administration changed policy (going to sattelite intel only) and left a bunch of operatives in the field hung out to dry. Some were killed (without retaliation, or even protest on the part of their employer and government) because of it.

Same as the USS Cole. No prob, no loss, no protest, no retaliation, no Justice.

Same as the Kobhar Towers. No prob, no loss, no protest, no retaliation, no Justice.

The US Embassy bombing in Somalia, same.

The only lesson learned was that you CAN attack the USA without retribution or worry of ever being brought to Justice. (kinda like getting a BJ in the hallway... no prob.)

The ONLY Clinton legagcy so far.

But there is a chance for more to come. Hillary is waiting to run for Prez until Ralph Nader retires so she doesn't have to share the Dem vote with him.

The seasoned intelligence operatives left government service during the Clinton administration after being abandoned. They are not coming back. The ones we have now ARE new. It takes time (years) to insert people into a situation, and start reaping intel after building trust and a relationship.

Don't forget that the contacts on the other side were burned as well when we shut down their relationship with our people during that sea change in the Clinton administration. They changed the rules and told everyone AFTER the fact.

They saw that the winds of politics here in this country CAN change every 4 years. They fear another democratic party President, especially when they hear that candidate flip flop with the political wind even prior to taking office. The same Dem candidate saying he is going to 'bring our boys home from all over the globe', and 'correct the wrongs done during the Bush administration'. These statements send shivers thru the recently rebuilt and fragile intelligence agencies.

As far as Clarke? He was supposedly a grizzled veteran. He was given a chance to pass into the present administration. His policy statements just didn't pan out, and he was demoted. He stopped coming to staff meetings, even when asked directly by the National Security Advisor, his boss.

Hmmm. Disgruntled? Maybe, but I think disillusioned is more likely it.

A lot of what has been said here is subjective in the extreme. In politics, they do not call it lying, they call it spinning and all parties engage in this type of disinformation. We, the great unwashed, make conclusions without sufficient information, convinced, somehow, that we are right and the others are wrong. I will not condemn any administration any more than any other. Hindsight is always perfect. And, as much as one might hate the statement I made about the truth, Please point out to me one instance in politics where the truth has been uttered in toto by either side. The facts are parsed, dissected, deformed, and reassembled, turning them into unrecognizable drivel.

The Russians had a great race horse; in their mind the finest in the world. They challenged the US to race their finest in a two horse race. The US horse won. The Russian press had the following headline: "The great Russian horse came in second, while the American entry came in next to last."

Truth? What is truth?

Selling a book, 'nuff said.

Guys:
Having gotten older, I 've watched events from the 50's, taught history for awhile, & worked for a school district for 30 years (talk about politics!). I feel like rambling on a bit.
I've really taken the old saying, "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see", to heart. As I get older, I lose more faith in humanity - especially the parts of humanity involved in government, law and corporate interprise. They all affect the masses of the world tremendously. I'm afraid the country is going the way most others have over time. Self-serving greed, quest for power and lack of conviction eventually eat into the fabric as those lacking in conviction and only seeking personal or idealogical gain dedicate their lives to that gain, while the rest of us work on & drive our Porsches and do our other things. All of these admistrations have done whatever it took to gain & maintain power without promoting much actual benefit. There were exceptions in terms of some pushing ideas ( Johnson & his Great Society - nice idea but a fiscal & social flop, Reagan said & did what was on his mind & there were some others. I don't take away from accomplishments achieved otherwise, but I think they were done mostly because the problems were there & wouldn't go away without some decision & action ), but mainly the only ideal served was to stay in the job and promulgate personal agendas & philosophies. That includes all of the Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Judges, & on down. Clinton, to me, represented the paramount example of that. He served any interest that would keep him in office and make the appearance things were going smoothly.
Bush, I have to credit with having some conviction. I do believe some of what Clark says. I do think the Bush administration didn't give terrorism the priority it deserved. I do think Bush went into Iraq in part because Hussein tried to knock off his dad. I do think we are there partly because of oil interests. But, it really needed to be done. The rest of the world's nations didn't have the guts to enforce the UN resolutions. Lack of conviction on their part (and ours) enabled a condemned regine & dictator continue to thumb their noses at the world for over a decade, while they stole from their people, tortured and executed them. The French, Germans, Russians, etc. were only interested in their economic interests and resisted any idea of correcting a horrible situation. What better way of establishing (or attempting to) some sort of democratic environment in the middle east than trying it in centrally located Iraq. We will end up buying oil from Iraq, but that is in our best national interest - and the rest of the world.
The old boys' network, control of power, and special interests is something more established than we can imagine, and the struggles we see are just manifestations of the different parts of that network trying to gain power. I just hope (and maybe its the best we can all hope for) there will occassionally be somebody who comes along who has the conviction to do something right once in a while.

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.