Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Shock! Horror!

A 30-year veteran of executive bureaucracy apparently has a talent for spin in favour of of his employer!
There is nothing in those pieces that is in clear contradiction.

Enough ad hominem - anything against the substance of his claims? (The major ones as I see it being that terrorism was much less a priority to Bush than Clinton prior to 9/11; and that post 9/11 Iraq was regarded as of greater import than directly dealing with Al Queda; and that whoever was in charge, 9/11 was a government f**kup of massive proportions - one over which not a single government official has forfeited their job).

(It's also worth noting that Clarke wanted to get his book out last year, but it was the White House held it up. The Bushies have no one but themselves to blame).

(And, no, Clarke does not work for the Kerry campaign)

Posted by Duncan Young at March 24, 2004 12:47 PM

I didn't say he did work for the Kerry campaign (at least not as an employee--it certainly looks like he's doing what he can to get Kerry elected...).

I find it a little amazing that he's trying to make Bush look bad for what happened in his first months in office, when he was still transitioning, when Clinton had eight years to deal with the problem. There was zero evidence that I can see that terrorism was a priority in the Clinton administration, despite protestations after the fact by Secretary Albright.

As for "Bushies" "having themselves to blame," it wouldn't surprise me if they wanted it to come out now, seeing how it's got such potential to blow up in his face in the post-primary season. If Carl Rove didn't plan it this way, he should have.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 24, 2004 01:05 PM

Well, Condi Rice is on a recorded interview discussing Al Qedia a year prior to her "blank stare" moment when "W" was still campaigning for president.

Come on, even a blind man can see this guy has a history of self-contradiction. Or are you trying to say he said "more" instead of "foreign"?

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 24, 2004 01:27 PM

It was George W. Bush who ran ads with wrecked towers and the words "Tested". Instead, Al Queda handed the administration their collective rear end on that day. And Bush's response: fight a quick proxy war and then change the subject.

You see zero evidence that Clinton saw terrorism as a priority. Without discussing the defeated Millennium Plot, the successful arrest of the original WTC bombers, the initiative to arm Predators, and his final statement to the nation, I have to look at horrors of Bali, Madrid, Karabala, Najif, Mosul, and Moscow, a very near miss with Richard Ried, not to mention the great festering sore of DHS and say I don't see much evidence that the Bush approach to Al Queda is working.

And if Condi Rice really wants to clear things up she is free to testify under oath, in public, to the commission.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 24, 2004 01:40 PM

I see our favorite martian is active. Hellooooo, Duncan? How's the weather up there? Been talking to Spirit again, I see.

Anyway, back here on Earth, Dick(head) Clarke is nothing but a money-grubbing ex-yesman bureaucrap trying to inflate his 15 seconds (with CBSVIACOMSIMON&SCHUSTER playing along) for his own personal greed.

Oh, and one other thing I'd like to point out to the masses:

"INTELLIGENCE ISN'T PERFECT, BUT HINDSIGHT IS."

Now, if you think ANYONE had any REAL idea that something as big as 9-11 was going down, AND HAD SOMEWAY TO IDENTIFY IT, then you're just a blithering idiot.

For example, I KNOW there's a big rock out there with our name on it, and if it shows up tomorrow and takes out NY, there will eventually be a congressional hearing where fourteen different bureaucrats will hold up their right hand and say: "We TOLD the president it was coming, but nooooo, he didn't do anything about it." Ooooh, that makes all the folks in NY feel better.

Instead of whining about who knew what when,why don't we try focusing on who did what in response. And, who's gonna do what in the future. I'm sure John Fking Kerry will just spank those Al-Qaeda nasties in the butt, huh? Oooh, let's hug them, and kiss them, and we'll make it ALLLL better.

Gawd, it's so hard to suffer the fools.

Posted by Dave G at March 24, 2004 05:35 PM

Dave,
Either the Bush administration has a shocking propensity for hiring/retaining
"money-grubbing ex-yesman bureaucrap(s who will try) to inflate (their) 15 seconds"
or all these former administration officials coming out against their former employer have a point.

Neither is a good reason to re-elect Bush.

(BTW David Kay (of "just you wait until David Kay releases his report!!" fame) is now begging the White House to apologize for the WMD fiasco. However, just like 9/11, and just like the budget, this administration will never admit mistakes. And that is what precisely makes it dangerous).

As for Spirit, I advise you to soberly consider this important development.
Cheers,
Duncan

Posted by Duncan Young at March 24, 2004 06:57 PM

Dang!
I meant "As for Spirit, I advise you to soberly consider this
important development. "

Posted by Duncan Young at March 24, 2004 07:01 PM

BTW David Kay (of "just you wait until David Kay releases his report!!" fame) is now begging the White House to apologize for the WMD fiasco. However, just like 9/11, and just like the budget, this administration will never admit mistakes. And that is what precisely makes it dangerous).

Got a cite for that? And even if true, how does it differ from how a Kerry administration would be?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 24, 2004 07:19 PM

Kay's current thinking on Iraq's WMD.

Kay's call for Bush to come clean.

Given how nearly the entire Democratic establishment burned Kerry before the primaries began, I doubt the code of omerta will be quite so strong in his White House. He has no deeply loyal insider base, and frankly that is a plus. And I am talking about adminstrations here; I don't think this Praetorian President is allowed much awareness of his administration's failures.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 24, 2004 07:57 PM

"This praetorian president"?

As opposed to the one who went to court, and lost 9-0, to keep his secret agents from testifying against him?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 24, 2004 08:14 PM

I'm speaking in terms of information capture and relevence to policy. Bill Clinton read his own newspapers. Bush relies on his prefects.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 24, 2004 08:33 PM

Then you are apparently unfamiliar with what "praetorian" means.

And you prefer a president that attempts futilely to manage minutia (like Jimmy Carter and the tennis court schedule) instead of able to delegate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 24, 2004 09:13 PM

Praetorian - after the roman military unit orginally tasked with protecting the emperor, which eventually became more powerful than their charge, manipulating the caesars and selling off the imperial wreath to the highest bidder. Destroyed by Constantine in 312.

Its modern meaning - the upper ranks of a bureaucracy run amock, unaccountable and more powerful than than its titular leader.

See the administrations of G W Bush, R W Reagan, and the presidential campaign of H Dean for examples.

After Schlesinger and J R Saul.

I'm interested in your definition.

Also: Carter is not on the ballot.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 24, 2004 10:11 PM

That sense of "praetorian" is also used by Paul O'Neill in The Price of Loyalty apparently.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 24, 2004 10:20 PM

See the administrations of G W Bush, R W Reagan, and the presidential campaign of H Dean for examples.

I find myself fascinated by your omission of the fortieth president.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 24, 2004 10:43 PM

I included Reagan. (unless you believe he was aware and responsible for Iran-Contra - a great blinking signpost to the dangers of over-delegation if there was any- and that he was retroactively impeached).

Or maybe you are doing some odd math involving John Hancock?

Posted by Duncan Young at March 25, 2004 12:11 AM

Which according to Clark and others they did, with varying degrees of success. He was interviewed over here the other night and pointed out that a bunch of attacks over the Millenium were stopped.

He also said he asked to brief the President in Jan '01, but didn't actually get a chance to for months. "Transition" doesn't cut the mustard, it really doesn't.

Iraq is a side show, an expensive one at that.

As for the timing of the book. It would appear to be either an own goal by the administration, holding up publication while they veted it. Or an indication that there are other civil servants who want to see them out.

Posted by Dave at March 25, 2004 02:18 AM

In being questioned about the October 2002 briefing, Clarke first said he hoped those things would happen, but they didn't. Then he said no, what he said in the briefing wasn't "untrue."

I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Posted by McGehee at March 25, 2004 05:07 AM

Game, Set and Match to Richard Clarke for producing an elongated moment of silence following these words (during yesterdays testimony):

"..... by invading Iraq the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

Rand Simberg: He says he agreed with the president's policy" (link to Fox News) before he "disagreed with it" (link to Fox News), and that he thought there was a Clinton plan after he thought there wasn't. And that he implemented the Bush policy at the time, before he didn't.

Posted by canute at March 25, 2004 05:27 AM

Game, Set and Match to Richard Clarke for producing an elongated moment of silence following these words (during yesterdays testimony):

"..... by invading Iraq the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

It looks like Rand Simberg's only(?) news source is the "fair and balanced" Fox News. It was great fun watching the proceedings on the live feed from C-Span. James Thompson, the former Republican governor of Illinois, and John Lehman, Navy secretary under President Reagan, both tried to make Clarke look not credible. Thompson came across as a mean spirited uninformed political amateur. He tried to use the same transcript that Rand's is waving his hands over.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/bn.00.html

-------------------------------------------------
KERREY: Well, Mr. Clarke, let me say at the beginning that everything that you've said today and done has not damaged my view of your integrity. It's very much intact as far as I'm concerned. And I hope that your pledge earlier not to be a part of the Kerry administration did not preclude you from coming to New York sometime and teaching at the new schools.

(LAUGHTER)

And let me also say this document of Fox News earlier, this transcript that they had, this is a background briefing. And all of us that have provided background briefings for the press before should beware. I mean, Fox should say "occasionally fair and balanced" after putting something like this out.

-------------------------------------------------

Thompson desperately tried to nail Clarke. "But you will admit that what you said in August of 2002 is inconsistent with what you say in your book? Clarke responded calmly: "No, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. I think, as I said in your last round of questioning, Governor, that it's really a matter here of emphasis and tone. I mean, what you're suggesting, perhaps, is that as special assistant to the president of the United States when asked to give a press backgrounder I should spend my time in that press backgrounder criticizing him. I think that's somewhat of an unrealistic thing to expect."

Clarke demonstrated two essential attributes of a star witness at a high-profile investigation: a flair for the dramatic moment and a taste for rhetorical combat. These became apparent when John Lehman challenged his credibility as a Bush critic. Lehman began with some condascending and patronising bullshit by proclaiming himself a longtime "fan of Clarke", then suggested that there was a major gap between Clarke's 15 hours of testimony to the commission staff and his blistering criticisms of Bush in Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, and recent media interviews.
"Because of my real genuine long-term admiration for you, I hope you'll resolve that credibility problem, because I'd hate to see you become totally shoved to one side during a presidential campaign as an active partisan selling a book," Lehman concluded.

Given where Clarke's answer wound up, Lehman might have wished he'd never asked. After denying he was a partisan, Clarke got around to the differences between his testimony to the staff and his book.

"There's a very good reason for that," Clarke said. "In the 15 hours of testimony, no one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq. And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

Clarke stopped there, letting his last sentence hang in the air as he awaited Lehman's next question. It never came, and Clarke finally leaned back, a small smile appearing on his face...

-------------------------------------------------

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

Bob Dylan (Masters of War)

Posted by Canute at March 25, 2004 05:31 AM

Gentlemen, puhleese. Can we have some grownup discussion here? Has Duncan Young forgotten the claim, made in a few places, that Clinton's administration allowed Bin Laden to get away in 1996 when there was a chance of nailing him? As Bush pointedly put it after 9/11, lobbing the odd Cruise missile into a cave and then returning to other business was the modus operandi of the Clinton years. Fat lot of good that did.

Yes, Bush was concerned about Iraq from the day he was elected. Rightly so, given Saddam's appalling track record, obduracy towards the UN, etc. It would have been irresponsible of Bush and the rest not to have been concerned about that country.

Of course, whole swathes of folk believe dogmatically that the overthrow of Saddam was a "sideshow" and irrelevant to the war on terror. Funnily enough, as the recent message from the islamists over Madrid showed, the terror groups think different. For them, the establishment of a pluralist free nation in Iraq is their worst nightmare.

Let's bring it on

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 25, 2004 05:32 AM

Whet the hell is not fair and balenced about Fox's transcript?

Those are dipshit Clarke's words, not Foxes and no one else put them in his mouth.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 25, 2004 06:39 AM

I think Donald Lambro does a better job explaining than I could:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040324-091044-9535r.htm

"Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.

March 25, 2004 -- DEAN Acheson famously titled his memoir of his years as secretary of state after World War II "Present at the Creation." Anyone close to Richard Clarke these last few days could write a memoir called "Present at the Self-Immolation." Rarely has a former public servant with such a sterling reputation shot it all away so quickly.
If Clarke is ever hired in another administration, it should be as Dishonesty Czar. Even by the standard of the host of recent anti-Bush books, Clarke's "Against All Enemies" distinguishes itself for its pathetically misleading and incomplete account of the facts.

For evidence of this, look no further than Clarke's August 2002 briefing for reporters while he was still at the National Security Council.

In that briefing, first reported by Fox News, Clarke portrayed Bush as an anti-terror stalwart.

Was he merely parroting talking points given to him by the Bush team? That's the explanation he offered at yesterday's hearing. But he can't get off the hook so easily.

At the very least, what he said in August 2002 must have been factual. Otherwise, Clarke has revealed himself to be an opportunist who will lie at the direction of his superiors.

So, if what Clarke said was true (and no one has contradicted it), why didn't he include it in his book?

A crucial (false) claim of Clinton defenders is that the Clinton team forged an anti-al Qaeda war plan that was then handed over to the Bush administration and ignored. In his August 2002 briefing, Clarke said, "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." His book seems to confirm that, but nowhere puts it so starkly.

In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book.

He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.

In 2002, Clarke emphasized that the Bush team "changed the strategy from one of rollback with 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." This is mentioned in his book, but - amazingly - as an afterthought.

Clarke in 2002 knocked down the idea that there was irrational animus toward the Clinton team on the part of the Bushies that blinded them to the necessity of strong counterterrorism. He offered himself, kept on as a holdover from the Clinton administration, as a refutation: "That doesn't sound like animus against the previous team to me." In his book, he suggests there was such an irrational animus.

Finally, in his 2002 briefing, Clarke made it clear that there was no "appreciable" change in U.S. terror policy from October 1998 until the Bush team began to reevaluate policy in the spring of 2001 and get more aggressive. His book implausibly argues the opposite, that Clinton was on the ball and Bush dropped it.

This is just the beginning of the contradictions and mistakes.

* In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than fighting terror. No. In his own book, he says trying to force a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack against USS Cole.

* Clarke says in his book that Bush asked him to look into a possible Iraq connection to 9/11 in an "intimidating" way. No. Two other witnesses say there was nothing intimidating about Bush's manner.

* Clarke says Condi Rice appeared as if she hadn't heard of al Qaeda before he mentioned it to her in early 2001. No. Rice made public statements in late 2000 noting the threat from bin Laden.

Given all of this, it's hard to believe that anyone takes Richard Clarke seriously - including himself. "

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 25, 2004 07:29 AM

My goodness, how times have changed.

I oppose budget deficits. Am I liberal or conservative?

I favor using the US military to improve the quality of life for people in far off lands (nation building). Am I liberal or conservative?

Wow!

Posted by Bill White at March 25, 2004 07:33 AM

Whet the hell is not fair and balanced about Fox's transcript?

Hmm, why does one get the feeling - and I can't really explan why - that when you watch Rupert Murdoch's "fair and balanced" news network from outside the US, that it seems like just another "arm" of the White House "Propaganda"
Department? Can you tell me why Fox-news-anchors
look like they are "official" spokepersons of uncurious George.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22218-2004Mar24.html

"Shortly before the hearing, the White House violated its long-standing rules by authorizing Fox News to air remarks favorable to Bush that Clarke had made anonymously at an administration briefing in 2002. The White House press secretary read passages from the 2002 remarks at his televised briefing, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has declined to give public testimony to the commission, called reporters into her office to highlight the discrepancy. "There are two very different stories here," she said. "These stories can't be reconciled."

Wow, the White House authorizes Fox to.........

Actually, Josh Marshall at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ has a good take on the "fair and balanced" news network. BTW, I have a question for you: How many people outside the US are actually taking the "fair and balanced" news network seriously ( as compared to f.ex. CNN International and BBC World Service)?

--------------------------------------------------
Here's how Fox News described Lehmann's comment ... (by Josh Marshall)

"You've got a real credibility problem," John Lehman, former Navy secretary under President Reagan, told Clarke, calling the witness "an active partisan selling a book."
Clarke responded: "I don't think it's a question of morality at all, I think it's a question of politics."

Now, get a load of this Clarke guy! Okay, wait, don't get a load of him yet. Lehmann's broadside was harsh enough. Did Fox accurately portray what Lehmann said? I'll let you decide.

Okay, now ... get a load of this Clarke guy! Lehmann accuses him of all this terrible stuff. And this character Clarke comes back with, "Hey buddy, morality, shmorality. It's all politics to me!"

Hmmm. Actually, that wasn't his response. That was his response to a completely different exchange, which came later ...

-------------------------------------------------

Bob Dylan

Posted by Canute at March 25, 2004 07:34 AM

PS - - concerning Richard Clarke, this post offers no opinion on the substance of his testimony.

But, the louder the Administration and its supporters scream, the more I believe Clarke has hurt them.

Posted by Bill White at March 25, 2004 07:37 AM

I think Donald Lambro does a better job explaining than I could:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040324-091044-9535r.htm

Of Course, by not having watched Clarke's ENTIRE testimony live on TV, or on the web - to independly make up you own mind - you relie on somebody else (as a secondary news source) to explain things for you.

Why am I not surprized that Donald Lambro writes for a "fair and balanced" newspaper such as the Rupert Murdoch controlled Washington Times?

Bob Dylan

Posted by Canute at March 25, 2004 07:56 AM

So,what exactly is wrong with what Donald Lambro reported or is all you are capable of is ad-hom attacks against the sources?

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 25, 2004 08:07 AM

Here is another question. Suppose the FOX team undermines Clarke's credibility in the United States. Don't forget, Clarke is being watched in Europe as well.

Old Europe just added Spain and Poland to their ranks and are about to appoint a Terrorism Tsar to develop and implement a European response to terrorism independent of Washington's lead.

Keeping Europe as a follower of Washington has been a neo-con priority which is now slipping away.

Posted by Bill White at March 25, 2004 08:10 AM

So by reporting Clarke's contradictory statements (his words, not FOX's!) Fox is undermining Clarke's credibility?

I think Clarke is wholly responsible for his own statements. He has a problem with self-consistency. Are you suggesting the media give Clarke a free pass?

As fo Fox's credibility.

Anyone else remember CNN caught giving favorable press to Saddam to stay in Iraq? Seems to have heppened around a year ago.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 25, 2004 08:42 AM

Mike, you miss my point.

The more we in the US circle up our firing squads the less credibility we have in Europe. Painting Clarke as a 30 years mole for the Jane Fonda / John Kerry clique might fly in the US but it will harm US credibility in Europe.

By the way, on Larry King Clarke said that in his opinion Bush 41 was the BEST President he knew for national security issues.

Posted by Bill White at March 25, 2004 09:12 AM

>> just like the budget, this administration will
>> never admit mistakes. And that is what
>> precisely makes it dangerous).

> Got a cite for that? And even if true, how does
> it differ from how a Kerry administration would
> be?

As THE ECONOMIST recently pointed out, there is an upside to some of Kerry's flip-flopping on issues since it indicates at least he is thinking about things and willing to change his mind when the facts change. For example, is "he was for the war in Iraq and now he is opposed" really such a damning remark? After all, Colin Powell & co. made certain claims and arguments regarding WMDs and Al Qaeda ties that clearly were the decisive reasons why Iraq had to be addressed immediately -- now matter how pro-war types are trying to spin things one year later. And if these "facts" now appear to be false, doesn't it make sense to question the Administration's rationale for going to war?

In contrast to Kerry, the current President is absolutely 100% certain he is always right regardless of facts and circumstances. William Saletan has written two good columns on the perils of this approach [ http://slate.msn.com/id/2095160/ ; http://slate.msn.com/id/2096654/ ]

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 25, 2004 10:09 AM

If he wanted his allegations treated seriously, why did Clarke make them in a book published in the middle of a presidential campaign in which his pal, Rand Beers, happens to be the top foreign policy adviser to John Kerry?

As I recall, two months ago John Kerry was going to be a footnote in this campaign.

If they're true, why did he wait so long to make them? Why didn't he make them the day he resigned his post in the Bush administration? A presidential dereliction of duty so vast would have required no less.

The evidence is that Clarke is a very careful man - he needed time to get all his duck in a row, and do the thinking and research that would have been improper for a civil servant to do on the tax payers coin. The gap further illustrates his integrity.

If Clarke didn't see the need to make his charges right after he left the administration, why didn't he make them in an interview or think-tank seminars after the election?

Oh this is pitiful.
Precisely because it is in the public's interest to know about the administration's performance so they can make a fair judgment in the election.

Too easy.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 25, 2004 10:34 AM

That's breathtaking spin, Duncan. Admirable, I suppose, in some perverse way.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 25, 2004 11:49 AM

Thanks for the compliment : )

Any substantive rebuttal?

You seem to be starting off from the assumption that when it comes to national security, the concept of accountability is not particularly relevant.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 25, 2004 12:10 PM

Any substantive rebuttal?

Probably not one that you'd find persuasive. You seem to view the world through a peculiar lens.

You seem to be starting off from the assumption that when it comes to national security, the concept of accountability is not particularly relevant.

I can't imagine how you reach such a bizarre conclusion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 25, 2004 12:20 PM

A simple question: In the wake of the worst security failure in your countries' history, should those entrusted (at great expense) with the protection of the United States, be held to account for their actions, and accept responsibility for their failures?

Yesterday was the first time we heard a direct mea cupla by a key person.

It is the only way to learn from our mistakes.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 25, 2004 12:34 PM

Duncan:

I think the suprise offensive of the IJN in '41 was a bigger security failure.

Posted by Joe at March 25, 2004 12:57 PM

That was a faux apology and political grandstanding. He may apologize for himself if he wishes, but he can't do so for the federal government, and that's not accountability.

If he'd gotten fired over it, or if Bush loses his election, that will be accountability. Clarke's "mea culpa" was as meaningless as Bill Clinton's apology for slavery, regardless of whether or not it made some partisan 911 families feel good.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 25, 2004 12:57 PM

Rand,
I meant to add "And that was a couple of years late."
I accept full responsibility for my failure to add that phrase.

Joe:
People will be arguing about that point until the Great Zeta Recticulian Ambush of 2356. Cows of Earth beware!

(I accept full responsibility for my use of Ancient USENET Humour)

Posted by Duncan Young at March 25, 2004 01:14 PM

I wasn’t very comfortable with the Iraq invasion – and I only point this out so I won’t be automatically tarred with the “Neocon” label.

Duncan: Between the Fox transcript (with audio available) and the Time’s article with examples, it seems very clear that Clarke has changed his tone repeatedly, even differing from one recent statement or another. His story has changed too much to seem credible to me. Have you READ the transcript? Have you READ the Time’s article, and seen some of his other interviews? Would you still find him credible if he was still saying what he said in 2002?

You don’t seem to understand Joe’s point. Before WWII, we knew that a war with Japan was inevitable, it was even clear that it was coming soon. But we didn’t know where, and we didn’t know quite when it would start. Politically, it would have been impossible for the U.S. to start the war at that time – we would have been tarred and feathered for it. AFTERWARDS, with the hindsight to lead us, it was easy to see many things we could have done, “if only …” But, if you don’t have a crystal ball, you have to look at all the information you have – and a lot of garbage – and try to pick out the important bits. It doesn’t always work.

If only we had had better intelligence, if only the transition hadn’t been slowed down because of the idiotic Florida battle, if only Bush had ordered Afghanistan attacked before 9/11, it might not have happened.
And, I have no doubt you – and most of the world - would be complaining about that “unprovoked” attack right now. WE COULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT WE DID BEFORE 9/11, just as we could not have preemptively attacked the Japanese before Pearl Harbor. Nor is it clear to me that things would have turned out for the better in the long run if we had. I envy you your crystal ball, I try to look at what the people at the time had to work with, and decide if they made good choices based on what they knew then.

Posted by VR at March 25, 2004 03:40 PM

There is no contradiction here - if a plan was ignored by the next administration, well, it wasn't passed on to the next administration.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on the other claims.

VR:

The Time article is pretty lame.

Clarke on 60 minutes: "The president was intimidating!"
Clarke in his book: "The president was testy!"
Therefore Clarke is at war with himself.

Meanwhile emerging from the Whitehouse:
Cheney: "Clarke was out of the loop!"
Rice: "Clarke was in every meeting that was held on terrorism!"

At this rate I expect body parts flying out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

(just to be clear, Clarke is a paranoid wingnut - the whole Libya thing was Richard Pearl dumb - but that doesn't discredited what he said to the Commission).

And as to tragedies with silver linings - well of course that is true. You only have to look at the Columbia accident as an example. It may have gotten NASA back into the human exploration business. But there was endless self-flagellation and people lost their jobs. Hindsight should never be an excuse. Examples need to be set, if only to remind the next bunch to be more careful.

Don't fall into the trap of rationalizing mass murder - because then, the terrorists really have won.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 25, 2004 05:45 PM

>This one is a little surprising due to the
>source--Time magazine. Mr. Clarke does indeed
>seem to be at war with himself.

Rand, why does one get the impression that you didn't watch Richard Clarke's testimony? Of Course, you only read what other like-minded people are saying about Clarke, don't you?

Anyway, Kevin Drum at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ has a good take on your latest link:

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

TODAY'S WINNER....Here's my award for the most laughable effort (so far!) to discredit Dick Clarke. Romesh Ratnesar, in a piece highlighted on their home page, writes in Time that Clarke's performance on TV seems rather more dramatic than what he wrote in his book — a potentially defensible point — but then dives straight down a spider hole and never returns.

The scene is the White House the day after 9/11 and President Bush is asking repeatedly about possible Iraqi involvement. Here is Ratnesar's take on things:

--------------------------------------------------
....interviewed on PBS' The NewsHour, Clarke sexed up the story even more. "What happened was the President, with his finger in my face, saying, 'Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaeda, a memo on Iraq and the attacks.' Very vigorous, very intimidating."

....The Bush in [the book] sounds more ruminative than intimidating: "I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." When Clarke responds by saying that "al-Qaeda did this," Bush says, "I know, I know, but see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred....." Again Clarke protests, after which Bush says "testily," "Look into Iraq, Saddam."

Nowhere do we see the President pointing fingers at or even sounding particularly "vigorous" toward Clarke and his deputies. Despite Clarke's contention that Bush wanted proof of Iraqi involvement at any cost, it's just as possible that Bush wanted Clark to find disculpatory evidence in order to discredit the idea peddled by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Baghdad had a hand in 9/11.
-------------------------------------------------

So: on TV Bush is "vigorous" but in the book he is merely "testy." Good catch!

But the best part comes next: Bush wasn't trying to blame 9/11 on Iraq, he was hoping Clarke would come up with evidence that Iraq wasn't involved! Why? Because he knew that Rummy and Wolfowitz were sure to start peddling that nonsense and he wanted to be ready to bat it down.

Who comes up with this stuff? And why is Time publishing such obvious flimflam?

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

I'm quite sure that you've not read the following article by Pat Buchanan (who must have been at one point, a like-minded person to you Rand):

No End to War: The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict. (By Patrick J. Buchanan)
http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

Some excerpts:

1)
An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.” “What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained” now menaces “our survival as a nation.”

2)
To suggest Frum and Perle are over the top is not to imply we not take seriously the threat of terror attacks on airliners, in malls, from dirty bombs, or, God forbid, a crude atomic device smuggled in by Ryder truck or container ship. Yet even this will never “overthrow our civilization.”

In the worst of terror attacks, we lost 3,000 people. Horrific. But at Antietam Creek, we lost 7,000 in a day’s battle in a nation that was one-ninth as populous. Three thousand men and boys perished every week for 200 weeks of that Civil War. We Americans did not curl up and die. We did not come all this way because we are made of sugar candy.

Germany and Japan suffered 3,000 dead every day in the last two years of World War II, with every city flattened and two blackened by atom bombs. Both came back in a decade. Is al-Qaeda capable of this sort of devastation when they are recruiting such scrub stock as Jose Padilla and the shoe bomber?

In the war we are in, our enemies are weak. That is why they resort to the weapon of the weak—terror. And, as in the Cold War, time is on America’s side. Perseverance and patience are called for, not this panic.

3)
Fear is what Perle and his co-author David Frum are peddling to stampede America into serial wars. Just such fear-mongering got us into Iraq, though, we have since discovered, Iraq had no hand in 9/11, no ties to al-Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, and no plans to attack us. Iraq was never “the clear and present danger” the authors insist she was.

4)
If the neocons purport to see ethnic hatred in everyone else’s motives, is it unfair to explore for an ethnic affinity in their own? Why does every grand strategy neocons advance, from “American empire” to “benevolent global hegemony” to “a Pax Americana” to “world democratic revolution” have as its centerpiece solidarity with Sharon and a vigorous wielding of American power against all the enemies of Israel?

Why is every peace plan proposed or endorsed by a president to give the Palestinians a home of their own—the Rogers Plan, the Oslo accords, Camp David, the Taba Plan, the Saudi Plan, the Mitchell Plan, the Road Map—a Munich sellout? Why is any American patriot, who demands that Ariel Sharon stop building settlements on Palestinian land and walling off Jerusalem, a State Department Arabist, a pawn of the Texas oil lobby, a Coughlinite, an anti-Semite, or a bought-and-paid-for lickspittle of the Saudis?

$$$$

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."

Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

Posted by Canute at March 26, 2004 03:20 AM

"A crucial (false) claim of Clinton defenders is that the Clinton team forged an anti-al Qaeda war plan that was then handed over to the Bush administration and ignored. In his August 2002 briefing, Clarke said, "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." His book seems to confirm that, but nowhere puts it so starkly.

There is no contradiction here - if a plan was ignored by the next administration, well, it wasn't passed on to the next administration.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on the other claims."

Oh, for the love of Pete!

Stop deluding us by trying to find these semantical outs, you are winning no converts.

You are playing, what is known as, LAWYER BALL!

Stop trying to defend the indefensible, it is making you look ridiculous.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 26, 2004 06:35 AM

Will David Kay be the next player to take a whack at the Administration?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/03/23/kay_implores_us_to_admit_mistakes_in_iraq/

The point is a legitimate one. If we fail to confess our errors over Iraqi WMD, why will anyone believe us if Iran actually does go nuclear?

Posted by Bill White at March 26, 2004 08:42 AM

The Washington Times has an article by Wesley Pruden (The public tantrum of a bureaucrat- 3/26/04) which outlines some of Richard Clarke's advice on counterterrorism. In some cases it was downright daffy. My question is, why wasn't he fired earlier?

His resentment over being passed over for the position as head of Homeland Security was only increased tenfold when he was passed over as the deputy head of Homeland Security.

Disgruntled employee goes against those who disgruntled him. Old story.

Posted by cba at March 26, 2004 09:59 AM

Stop trying to defend the indefensible, it is making you look ridiculous.

It was actually Dick Cheney who came up with the most damning claim against the adminstration - the idea that its chief counterterrorism official was kept out of the loop on terrorism prior to 9/11.

You might respond with the idea that Clarke was an idiot, and needed keeping out of the loop..

But then you have the adminstration keeping an idiot in charge of counterterrorism for the first 9 months of its existence.

Not exactly a rhetorical victory.

Posted by Duncan Young at March 26, 2004 01:10 PM

I just noticed this:

You wrote: See the administrations of G W Bush, R W Reagan, and the presidential campaign of H Dean for examples.

I wrote: I find myself fascinated by your omission of the fortieth president.

I meant: I find myself fascinated by your omission of the forty-second president (i.e., Clinton).

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 27, 2004 04:27 PM

Post a comment