Richard Clarke, what to make of him?

[lendaddy]

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

[joeclarke]

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...

[lendaddy]

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."

[singpilot]

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....

[lendaddy]

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?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

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!

[lendaddy]

"I think the guy is legit."

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

[VaSteve]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile


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.

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.

[Overpaid Slacker]

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

[lendaddy]

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.

[Overpaid Slacker]

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

[MFAFF]

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....

[singpilot]

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.....

[Moneyguy1]

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.

[lendaddy]

"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.

[Overpaid Slacker]

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

[singpilot]

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.

[Moneyguy1]

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?

[ZOA NOM]

Selling a book, 'nuff said.

[Evans, Marv]

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.