Tarantulas wrote:Srdja Trifkovic read Clarke's book. He quotes from it, too, and shows how Clarke has misrepresented the past. Chuck Harrison had a personal experience with Clarke, and his article talks about Clarke's skewed judgment. It seems that several people here would like to portray Clarke with a shining halo over his head. I believe it's important to show the horns that are holding that halo in place.
The Trifkovic article doesn't show anything much in the way of Clarke having "horns". Trifkovic claims Clarke misrepresented things about Bosnia. On some counts, I happen to agree with Trifkovic on them - and he does, additionally, point out an actual factual error or two on the subject in Clarke's book, too. On other points, I happen to think Trifkovic himself misrepresents the reality of the Bosnian war. It should be noted here that Trifkovic (I gather from browsing on his name a little bit) has repeatedly argued the Serbian case, so he's hardly an impartisan source himself. (On an aside, I have always wondered about the improbable identification of some conservative Republicans with the cause of then-fasco-communist Serbia - you gotta wonder about what hating Clinton will drive one to ...).
In short, what you have there is merely two people with a specific take on "Bosnia", disagreeing about the right interpretation. The "Richard A. Clarke, a Liar" headline is already overblown in that respect; the assertion that such items somehow prove that Clarke has "horns" rather than "a halo" is wholly far-fetched. But the real question it begs is about the
relevance of it all.
The point here - way I see it, anyhow - is that noone here is saying Clarke deserves a "halo". I'd bet that many liberals here would fiercely disagree with Clarke on a lot of things when it comes to the threat of Islamist terrorism and how it should be fought. Those who argue Clarke's case here are not saying he is
God - but merely that
they agree with the points he makes on the topic at hand - Bush, AQ and 9/11.
Now I wished that those who
disagree with Clarke would spend a little more time on arguing how and why they disagree
with these points - and less time on all kinds of side avenues that are merely meant to discredit Clarke as a person. Neither I nor Blatham nor PD cares much about Clarke as a person. We just happen to think he's made some credible-sounding claims about Bush, AQ and 9/11. Involving Clarke's take on
Clinton, AQ and 9/11 is fine. But showing us that Clarke's book includes a mistake about Bosnia, or that Clarke was the bad guy back when Rwanda was the topic, or that Clarke - etc etc etc - just feels like so many ways to not have to address those claims.
Of course, if Clarke were a lying, cheating scoundrel, that is relevant to scrutinizing his story. Problem one, here, is that if Clarke were a lying scoundrel, why did the Bush admin have - and praise! - him as the head of anti-terror affairs until way after 9/11? Problem two, more fundamentally, is that whatever light one chooses to cast on Clarke, one will still have to address the specific charges he made about Bush, AQ and 9/11. He
was the head honcho on anti-terror affairs both throughout Bush Jr's first two years in office, and under Clinton and Bush Sr. No matter how wrong you may argue he was on Rwanda, Red China or the danger of fast food, his testimony will still need to be addressed. If you say he can't be trusted, then his claims will need to be scrutinized more watchfully - but they
will still need to be scrutinized. And if he really is so un-credible, then it should be easy to refute his points, no?
I claim no extensive knowledge on the topic - I haven't gone in anywhere as deeply as Blatham et al. But the more Clarke's conservative detractors prefer bashing him over random other topics than just doing so, the more they give me, at least, the impression that Clarke really must have some irrefutable points, here.
