I just finished Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, which is an insider's look at America's reaction to Islamic terrorism since the Reagan years. Many will recall that Richard Clarke was a top manager in the Counterterrorism Security Group in both the Clinton and W. administration, as well as being a perennial foreign policy bureaucrat since the Reagan years.
The book opens like a Tom Clancy novel: the White House has been evacuated, the Vice President has been removed to the East Wing bunker and a small group of weathered staffers attempt to manage the worst terrorist attack perpetrated on American soil. Clarke is recalling his day at the office on September 11, 2001. All too often, I had to remind myself that this was a non-fiction book; it seemed like a novelization of a Jerry Bruckheimer film.
The author and the book have been much assailed by the supporters of W., which is a loss for the country. Other books attack Bush in a clearly partisan way (I'm looking at you, Al Franken and Michael Moore). This book is different. Clarke is no bleeding heart liberal. He's most certainly not a pacifist. Clarke is a reasonable intelligent man that's spent a good deal of his life studying and reacting to terrorism. He was fighting the war on terror before it became the War on Terror. In short, he's a very credible source of information. He outlines many, many failures of the bureaucracy and the American intelligence community over the past decade. Many of those still go unaddressed. At the end of the book, Clarke presents his cogent argument of why the Bush administration's anemic invasion of Afghanistan and its baffling invasion of Iraq has critically damaged the effort to destroy al Queda.
Supporters and detractors of W. must read this book. Bush is campaigning on his record fighting Terror. Clarke suggests giving W. a failing grade. And so do I.
If Clarke were the patriot he claims, why didn't he get this out as soon as possible? Even quitting the Bush administration BEFORE 9/11 when the new administration was being, as he claimed, so negligent?
Clarke's assertion that Clinton took terrorism, and Al Qaida, more seriously is difficult to understand. Clinton's administration, with Clarke holding the cabinet-level Anti-Terrorism czar position, missed no less than four opportunities to capture Bin Laden. The Clinton administration did essentially nothing to fight terrorism, save lob a few cruise missles. In fact, as has become clear recently, the crippling intelligence wall between the CIA and FBI was raised during the Clinton administration at the behest of Assistant Attorney General (and bizarrely, now 9/11 commissioner) Jamie Gorelick.
I dunno, maybe I should read it, but it sounds more like entertaining Fiction to me than credible history. Oh, I see where it's picked up for a movie now. What a coincidence.
Maybe you should read some things like Losing Bin Laden, which has contemporaneous interviews with Clarke where he says things clearly at odds with what he says now.
I've got lots more source material on how uncredible Clarke is, but I don't really have the time or inclination to address this when it's pretty clear that nobody should be taking Clarke seriously in the first place. If you can't see that this is just a political hatchet job, timed and orchetrated just in time for the 9/11 commission (itself timed and orchestrated before the election - remember the 'stolen' Democratic Senate memos that Ted Kennedy so upset about?), then I think I have very little chance of convincing you.
Oh dear God.
educated_foo on 2004-04-18T16:20:25
Maybe you should read some things like "Losing Bin Laden". I haven't read either book, but I'm just guessing that Miniter, a Fox news commentator and Op-ed columnist for the Wall Street Journal, is far more likely to produce an uninformed "partisan hatchet job" than is Clark, a career bureaucrat with direct experience of his subject matter.But I certainly agree with your last point, that if jjohn doesn't already agree with you, you have very little chance of convincing him
;). Re:Oh dear God.
jordan on 2004-04-18T21:02:22
- I haven't read either book, but I'm just guessing that Miniter, a Fox news commentator and Op-ed columnist for the Wall Street Journal...
What is it about being a Fox news commentator or being published in the Wall Street Journal that destroys your credibility?
Susan Estridge is a Fox News Contributor. Mara Liasson is a Fox News Contributor. Juan Williams is a Fox News Contributor. Ceci Connolly is a Fox News Contributor. Have these people lost all credibility because they comment on Fox?
Miniter has also contributed stories to The New Republic, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Altantic Monthly. Does being associated with the Wall Street Journal just destroy your credibility?
James Woolsey, director of Central Intelligence, 1993-1995 and a career Intelligence Officer, says about Losing Bin Laden:
"Young Allen Dulles, due to a tennis date, declined a meeting in Switzerland in 1917 with the then-unknown Lenin just before the latter boarded the famous train to the Finland Station. In this fascinating book Rich Miniter very ably tackles a big question: Why did the United States in the 1990s repeat Dulles' mistake regarding information about terrorism."
Miniter's book is heavily sourced, unlike your guilt-by-association slur.Re:Clarke is not credible and clearly partisan
zatoichi on 2004-04-18T17:08:57
Could not have said it better.
Re: Clarke is clearly credible and not partisan
jjohn on 2004-04-18T17:50:43
Citing Ann Coulter, in whose writing a bit of partisanship may be detected, isn't likely to sway my thinking. Should I counter with Al Franken quotes from Lying Liars?
Clark in April 2001, asked to be transfered to working on cyber security because of his frustration with the Bushies. That transfer would have happened in October 2001. Because of the events in September, Clarke had to stay on in the CSG longer than he had planned.
Bush did not make terrorism the priority. From what I recall of early 2001, Bush's priority was vacation.
The entire federal government dropped the ball. That's what lead to 9/11. Since it happened on his watch, it's up to W to take responsibility for it. That's what good leaders do. Perhaps that's not entirely fair, but that's why he gets to sit in the Big Chair.
It does appear that Clarke is supporting the Dems since he clearly feels betrayed by W.'s administration. I don't call that partisan; it's democracy. If a different Republican (like John McCain) was running in 2004, perhaps Clarke would be support him. There's no way of knowing how that hypothetical situation would turn out. Since that's not happening and Clarke believes Bush is a failure, I don't see what the guy can do but support the Dems. He could disenfranchise himself by not voting, I suppose.
Clarke served in more Republican administrations than Democratic ones and for a longer time. He was furious at "elder" Bush's ending the war before destroying all of the Iraqi Republican guard. He cites serveral examples of Clinton's antiterrorism failures, but the Sudanese offer to deliver bin Laden is an urban myth. At the time the head of Sudanese regime Turbi and bin Laden were "ideological soulmates." Sudan offering up bin Laden would be like Tony Blair offering up Henry Kissinger to the U.N. for war crimes.
However your claim that CBS was hyping Clarke's book for their own gain doesn't seem unreasonable. I'm unlikely to defend the honor of CBS.
:-) If you want to beat down on the presidents who ignored terrorist, take a look at H. W. Bush's non-reaction to PAN AM's 103 attack or Reagon's non-response to the Beruit attack that killed 200+ marines. Clinton's counterterrorism efforts may have been flaccid, but they were far more vigorous than those of his predecessors.
All of this political rancor detracts from the real debate: are we wining the war on terror? Does the U.S. foreign policy of W reduce or increase the supply of terrorists? Ultimately, time will tell. Clarke's assertion is that the invasion of Iraq was a collosal misstep that will further radicalize the Middle East. It's hard to see that happening now.
BTW, the next book I'll be reading is Hans Blix's Disarming Iraq.
Re: Clarke is clearly credible and not partisan
zatoichi on 2004-04-18T18:40:49
My biggest beef about Clarke is that it took him a whole year to come out with this and it happens to coincide with #1 a book release and #2 a presidential campaign.
I have watched the 9/11 hearings and there is just too much stuff that doesn't jive with what Clarke said. That may be on both sides. This is politics. But Clarke's timing makes him super suspicious in my view.
Release of the book
gizmo_mathboy on 2004-04-19T13:37:03
Well, it takes a period of time to write a book and he is a first time author. He also had to have the book screened by the White House, national security and all. He submitted the book to the White House around September last year ( maybe November ). The White House sat on it for something like 3 months.
Also, I doubt he has much say when the book is actually released, the publisher does. I think I saw somewhere the published was intending on have it out some time in April. I think the published saw an opportunity to get some extra sales by publishing before the public hearing portion of the 9/11 commission.
Clarke is a 30 year bureacrat. He knows how to judge where the wind blows. I think he saw that Bush wasn't keen on terrorism and wanted to move to cybersecurity (his plan for that sucks in my opinion). If nothing else, this book along with Suskind's (info provided by Paul O'Neill), and comments made by the guy whom was to head the faith-based initiatives show that this administration isn't good at making policies that make sense.Re:Release of the book
zatoichi on 2004-04-19T16:54:37
He should have been talking about this right out of the gate. Yet it takes him a year to make it known? That has nothing to do with "writing" the book.Re:Release of the book
Ovid on 2004-04-23T07:52:36
The White House sat on it for something like 3 months.
Most people know that I abhor the current administration, but in all fairness to the White House, doing book reviews is probably not a high priority. Further, for intelligence agencies to vet the book and ensure that Clarke was not illegally revealing classified information probably takes some time.
Also, though I again reiterate how much I despise the current administration, I don't hold Bush and Co. responsible for intelligence failings regarding terrorism. They inherited a mess (that started long before even Reagan was in the White House) and they had plenty of other issues to worry about. Of course, since I've not read Clarke's book, I could be dead wrong on this matter. The "Bin Laden determined to Attack the United States" memo may have been a clue.Re: Clarke is clearly credible and not partisan
jordan on 2004-04-18T20:49:37
- Citing Ann Coulter, in whose writing a bit of partisanship may be detected, isn't likely to sway my thinking.
Good deflection technique there. But, what's wrong with being a partisan? Are we all supposed to have nuanced positions somewhere in the middle? I don't have a problem with partisanship, I have a problem with people like Clarke claiming they are not partisan to give their arguments more weight when they are, in fact, quite partisan.
Why don't you address the point, though? Clarke is being absurd when he says that it was clear that Condi Rice had never heard of Al Qaida. This is the man with the courage and credibility we're supposed to stand up and respect?
- It does appear that Clarke is supporting the Dems since he clearly feels betrayed by W.'s administration. I don't call that partisan; it's democracy.
Coming out with a blockbuster book, clearly in support of one political party, just in time for a highly publicized witch hunt isn't partisanship? What is partisanship then? Are only Ann Coulter and Al Franken partisans?
In any case, Clarke claims he's not supporting the Dems:
Clarke, who has served under four presidents, said he would support neither Bush nor Kerry in November and would not accept a position in a possible Kerry administration.
So, as you admit, he clearly is supporting the Dems, what does this say about his credibility and veracity? Oh, I see, he's not supporting Kerry in November, he's supporting Kerry in April. Hey, it was you who said it was clear that he's supporting the Dems. That's a nuanced position of which only a Democrat could be proud.
Besides, Clarke's protestations aside, it's pretty clear from his history of giving to Democratic candidates and the fact that his "best friend" is a Foreign Affairs adviser to the Kerry campaign, it's pretty clear that he is a partisan and always has been.
- Clarke served in more Republican administrations than Democratic ones and for a longer time.
The fact that he was a career analyst and worked for Republican administrations doesn't mean much. When you are a career administration analyst and there are more Republican administrations during your career, you work for Republican administrations, if you can. If anything, you have to wonder if he wasn't biding his time, just waiting to cash in by turning on the Republicans.
- He cites serveral examples of Clinton's antiterrorism failures, but the Sudanese offer to deliver bin Laden is an urban myth. At the time the head of Sudanese regime Turbi and bin Laden were "ideological soulmates." Sudan offering up bin Laden would be like Tony Blair offering up Henry Kissinger to the U.N. for war crimes.
Urban myth? What's your source on this? I couldn't find it at snopes.com.
There was a power struggle in the Sudan, after years of internal strife, they were desparate to get closer to west. I could quote extensively from Losing Bin Laden or we could take Monsoor Ijaz's - who was supporting and advising the Clinton Administration in 1996 when all this was taking place - word for it, or you can just assert that it's an 'Urban Myth', if that makes you feel more comfortable.
- All of this political rancor detracts from the real debate: are we wining the war on terror?
I agree. But, people like Clarke, who drop their bombshells just in time for a heavily politicized 9/11 commission are at the root of this political rancor. It's clear that the 9/11 commission is not about how we prevent another 9/11 any more, it's all about who's responsible.
- BTW, the next book I'll be reading is Hans Blix's Disarming Iraq.
I'm sure you won't find anything to challenge your world view there.Re: Clarke is clearly credible and not partisan
pudge on 2004-04-20T22:27:48
The author and the book have been much assailed by the supporters of W., which is a loss for the country.
It's a loss for the country that his assault against Bush's Iraq war had to be intertwined with his analysis of the events leading up to 9/11. Clearly, his emphasis on Bush's failures pre-9/11 is tainted by his anger with Bush over his Iraq policy. Even some of the Democratic members of the 9/11 Commission essentially conceded this.
Look at most of the egregious claims made by Clarke. They are mostly about interpretation (Rice looked like she had never heard of Al Qaeda, Bush thought terrorism was "important" but not "urgent"). Yawn.
He addresses various intelligence failures, and then points the finger at Bush, despite the fact that they were preexisting conditions. He blames Bush for not accepting his Jan 25 recommendations, and doesn't make much mention of the fact that Clinton and his staff (Cohen, Reno, Albright) all rejected it too, and then he says under oath that there was no chance it would have prevented 9/11 anyway.
His final analysis is that if Bush treated the problem more seriously, then perhaps we would have discovered the plot, but the Commission hearings have proved that both the FBI and CIA were treating the problem very seriously, so there was precious little more that could have been done in terms of intelligence.
I agree that Clarke is a credible source of *information.* I disagree strongly that he is a credible source of *analysis* in regard to blame.
The entire federal government dropped the ball. That's what lead to 9/11. Since it happened on his watch, it's up to W to take responsibility for it. That's what good leaders do. Perhaps that's not entirely fair, but that's why he gets to sit in the Big Chair.
That's true, but the problem is that Clarke is blaming Bush and giving Clinton a pass in public. I am all for giving Bush the blame, but not the next step, which is saying Clinton did a great job, and would have done better. That's nonsensical garbage.
I don't know if you've read much of my journal on Slashdot, but my whole thing is that we should all realize that some people -- particularly Ashcroft and Clarke -- are clearly biased, giving one side of the story, and that the others are mostly covering their own asses (including Gorelick!), and the bottom line -- what the Commission is going to report -- is that everyone messed up, especially the intelligence agencies and lawyers in their procedures, and the politicians in their lack of urgency.
This applies to ALL the intelligence agencies, and ALL the politicians. Clinton had terrorist threats, including domestic hijackings. Why didn't he put stronger security in place? I am not trying to deflect Bush's due blame, and there is much of it, but this has turned, on the part of many, into a partisan witchhunt to make Bush into the big failure point, when we know that apart from treating the problem MORE urgently than Clinton, by changing existing procedures about information sharing and security in airports etc., he was not going to stop 9/11. And there is no reason to think Clinton would have prevented it either.
And yes, of course Bush is to blame for not seeing what was happening and doing those things. But the question we must ask when evaluating him politically, is whether Clinton would have done better, whether Kerry would have done better, whether Gore would have done better. And I can't see how anyone can, with any reasonable certainty, say yes.
Clinton's counterterrorism efforts may have been flaccid, but they were far more vigorous than those of his predecessors.
Only because the terrorists finally attacked our own soil. It's unfair to compare pre- and post-WTC attack of 1993, just as it is unfair to compare pre- and post-9/11.
All of this political rancor detracts from the real debate: are we wining the war on terror? Does the U.S. foreign policy of W reduce or increase the supply of terrorists? Ultimately, time will tell.
Yes. And I think we are winning, and it will reduce the numbers and effectiveness of the terrorists. You and Clarke disagree. But none of us knows.Re: Clarke is clearly credible and not partisan
jjohn on 2004-04-23T13:09:17
*blink*
Wow. I agree with pudge.
*blink* *blink*
Re: Clarke is clearly credible and not partisan
pudge on 2004-04-23T14:05:40
You will all come around, eventually! Muahahahaha!Re:Clarke is not credible and clearly partisan
jhi on 2004-04-18T21:11:24
Thanks, jjohn. Your message worked wonderfully to bring out from the woodwork the kind of people I can populate my use.perl dont-want-to-see-because-my-blood-pressure-skyrockets list with:-)
Re:Clarke is not credible and clearly partisan
jordan on 2004-04-18T21:58:23
I've learned down through the years, that if everyone loves you, especially in a diverse group, then you are probably doing something wrong.
I take your blood pressure readings as indication that I might be doing one thing right.
I've also learned that if something makes me really upset, it's usually a fault in my own character which evokes a defensive angry response so that I don't have to really consider what it is they are saying. Or, anger could be moral outrage, something was said that is so insulting that it makes me angry. I didn't see where I said anything insulting.
Out of deference, realizing there are some people who have no stomach for political debate, I usually post my political opinions without my Karma Bonus so as to make it even easier for you to ignore me.
Re:Clarke is not credible and clearly partisan
TorgoX on 2004-04-18T23:37:14
Dualism is a bad habit.Re:Clarke is not credible and clearly partisan
pudge on 2004-04-20T22:30:59
I've learned down through the years, that if everyone loves you, especially in a diverse group, then you are probably doing something wrong.
I learned that down the years, too. And then I learned I was wrong.
Re:Clarke is not credible and clearly partisan
jordan on 2004-04-21T01:10:06
Yeah, in my case it might just mean that I'm a jerk.
Why is it that you can edit Journal entries and not comments?
Re:Clarke is not credible and clearly partisan
pudge on 2004-04-20T22:28:45
my use.perl dont-want-to-see-because-my-blood-pressure-skyrockets list
skyrockets in a good way, or bad way?:-) Re:Clarke is not credible and clearly partisan
jhi on 2004-04-21T09:31:18
In baaaaaad way.
