INSIDE THE BELLY OF THE BEAST

CLARKE'S COLLAPSE

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.

"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".

A middle east peace agreement would be the BEST tool in fighting terror, don't you think, McG?

A Middle East peace agreement wasdealing with Israel and Palestine and would not have had any impact on Al Qaeda or the problems facing the rest of the middle east.

It's so interesting watching and listening to the Bush loyalists launch excuses for their hero's myriad failings.

Usually, the tried and true excuse for everything (off-shoring jobs, unemployment, job losses, terrorism, war, deficits, et al) is to lay blame at former President Clinton's feet.

Thank goodness Clinton wears size 12 shoes.

Doesn't Bush wear a size 5 cowboy boot?

Anyway, the last time I checked, the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH. President Clinton had been out of office nearly 300 days.

Maybe one of these days, George "aWol" Bush might actually be capable of taking responsibility for his actions, and stand up like any other 58 year old man.

are you actually suggesting that none of the planning for that attack hapened during the Clinton presidency? That the terrorists weren't moving in and out of the country at will during Clinton's presidency? That AlQaeda didn't grow to the power that it was during the Clinton presidency? That Osama Bin Laden wasn't a threat during the Clinton presidency?I guess I had a higher opinion of you than was deserved.

Casting dispersions on the current presidency to hide the short comings of the previous is a bit nefarious if you ask me. The same would be said of praising the current administration for the actions of the previous so don't go getting your undies in a bunch.

"...are you actually suggesting that none of the planning for that attack hapened during the Clinton presidency?" McGentrix

Beats me -- I wasn't in any al-Qaida training camp.

However, what I do know is, after Bush won his lawsuit and his cabal entered the White House, his team said the former administration (READ: Clinton's) has too focused on al-Qaida.

However, what I do know is, after Bush won his lawsuit and his cabal entered the White House, according to Richard A. Clarke, Condi Rice, Bush's alleged national security adviser was unware of al-Qaida.

However, what I do know is, after Bush won his lawsuit and his cabal entered the White House, according to Richard A. Clarke, Bush didn't see 'terrorism' as an urgent threat.

However, what I do know is, after Bush won his lawsuit and his cabal entered the White House, according to Richard A. Clarke, Bush was obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Again, I reiterate that the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 HAPPENED ON GEORGE BUSH'S WATCH -- PERIOD.

Deal with it.

Al Queada was getting strong on Saudi money,
and all of them pissed at us for letting Israel off
the hook time and again. And a peace agreement could have prevented many deaths and made us look better in the eyes of those who supposedly hate us. (again, for always siding with israel). Clinton could possibly have done even more, and if he realized what the stakes might be in 2001, I'm certain he would have, but that's neither here nor there. We've already been attacked, and likely, plans are in the making even now for another. The administration is not doing well addressing that from Iraq! Maybe our enemies are waiting until all our nation's brave young men die in Iraq, then they can come attack women, children and old men. Not to worry, bush will be safely in his bunker to continue "leading" us!

So, if a meteor were to hit minnesota, would that be Bush's fault as well? Because it happened on his watch?

This analogy is patently retarded. The fact that you almost certainly were serious only compounds this.

Go be irritating in the hamas thread and answer my question.

And there is evidence that King George the Liar was protecting old family friends -- as his Poppy instructed him to do so following the 9/11 attacks.

After all, the Bush clan and the Saudi royal Faad family, and the bin Ladens go back at least 50 years.

Honey-honey sweetheart deals between all of them have helped make the Bush dynasty one wealthy gang of GOPers.

Let's not forget the bin Laden construction family, funded by the Carlyle Group, build the majority of US military bases and airports throughout the Arab world.

What's the Bush connection? Simple: George Herbert Walker Bush is a principle stockholder in the Carlyle Group.

The dots are all connected.

All those dots form is a bullseye on the back of the liberals that would connect them.

?

I guess that means if we connect them, they'll have to kill us, huh?