Born-again critic of the Bush administration

townhall.com ^ | 3/25/04 | Larry Elder

[kattracks]

Richard Clarke, President George W. Bush's former "counterterrorism czar," accuses the Bush administration of seeking a tie between Iraq and 9/11, and pushing America into an ill-advised war in Iraq. Clarke claims that Bush attempted to "intimidate him" into finding evidence -- which Clarke maintains doesn't exist -- to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Clarke accuses Bush of doing little to combat terrorism pre-9/11.

Really?

Fox News' Jim Angle disclosed a tape of an August 2002 briefing by then-Special Adviser to the President for Cyberspace Security Richard Clarke. There, Clarke gave a decidedly different version of the Bush administration's terrorism policy:

Clarke: . . . (T)he Clinton administration had . . . a number of issues on the table since 1998. . . . (T)he Bush administration decided . . . mid-January (2001), to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings. . . . 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. . . . (The Bush administration) decided in principle . . . 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. (The Bush administration) 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. That is in fact the timeline. . . . (T)he Bush administration changed -- began to change Pakistani policy, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started . . .

Question: What you're saying is that . . . there was no delay, and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

Clarke: You got it. That's right. . . . President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of rollback to one of elimination.

Yet Richard Clarke now attacks the president for falsely claiming that he promptly and forthrightly began conducting a war on terror. But in "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," author Richard Miniter writes that Clarke accused the Clinton administration of lack of focus on terrorism. He criticized Bush's predecessor for making only half-hearted attempts at capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda due to bureaucratic infighting, foot-dragging, and military and diplomatic roadblocks. After the bombing of the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000, Miniter writes, "(Secretary of State Madeleine) Albright urged continued diplomatic effort to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Those efforts had been going on for more than two years and had gone nowhere. It was unlikely that the Taliban would ever voluntarily turn over its strongest internal ally. Clarke summed up the diplomatic efforts in a conversation with the author as amounting to 'lots of cups of tea.'"

Gleeful over Clarke's current slam against the Bush administration, the president's critics overlook key Clarke admissions. First, despite feeling "intimidated" by the perceived presidential wish to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11, Clarke said the president never asked him to "make it up." And Clarke admits that, he, too, thought Saddam possessed WMD. "Everybody did," said Clarke.

So where does this leave us?

The 9/11 commission intends to issue their final report this July. Expect a finding of enough blame to go around. This we know: The Clinton administration had eight years to go after terrorists, and the Bush administration had eight months. We also know that the planning for 9/11 began under Clinton's watch.

After the successful toppling of the Afghanistan and Iraq governments, a fearful Moammar Kadafi of Libya admitted and then renounced his WMD. This led to the unraveling of the nuclear network between Libya, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. North Korea, after balking, now appears willing to engage in non-proliferation talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States. The movement toward democracy in Iraq emboldens dissidents in Syria and Iran. An ABC News poll found that while 39 percent of Iraqis oppose the invasion, 48 percent approve! And 71 percent of Iraqis expect their lives to improve within a year's time.

If only Americans felt that optimistic.

The 9/11 commission appropriately seeks to find out why 9/11 occurred and what might have prevented it. The question becomes, now what? Clarke's harsh criticisms of the current Bush administration offers red meat to the president's enemies, but does little to assist in this colossal struggle for the very survival of human civilization.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Larry Elder | Read Elder's biography

[Texasforever]

Ya know, in a world in which people still had a sense of shame, this idiocy and rewriting of history would be too craven to advance. In 8 years Clinton did not kill one major terrorist. In 2 years Bush has killed or captured some of the most dangerous people alive and liberated 2 countries to the tune of 50 million people but he is now being accused of not taking terrorism seriously and it appears the idea is gaining some traction..

[Adrastus]

I'm impressed that this clown, Clarke, is peeing in the well. He's been shot down by about everybody but the lib press and knows his "career" is circling the bowl (if not just going down) and is trying to make his with this book. His most ardent desire at this time is to create as much uproar as possible for the purpose of selling books. He doesn't give a damn who he takes under with him. The only one's stroking their chin and tut-tutin are the dems and they are doing it for effect. For anyone to really believe this yarn it would take something more than wishful thinking. The guy has the believability of a siding salesman gone berserk."Hell hath no fury like a petty bureacrat scorned."

[kattracks]

The only one's stroking their chin and tut-tutin are the dems and they are doing it for effect.

And Clarke KNEW he'd have their support. He KNEW the media would run with his garbage.

Come to think of it, so did we all.

[Adrastus]

I suppose, in a perverse way, it's good to know what to expect from the media. They all make the assumption that if they tell the lie loud enough and long enough, we'll give up and say, "Ah hell, just leave off and give it a rest." They never expect the great unwashed to have the sense to see through them. I think more and more are getting the idea that the media isn't to be trusted. When's the last time you sat down in the evening for a network newscast? I'll tell you when I did. About the time sick willy puked on my carpet about not getting a Lewinsky.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The Democrats may gloat today, but I will wager the door will hit them square on their noses later, and this "Get Bush out of office" investigation won't have the political leverage in November that the Democrats are hoping for. Matter of fact, most of the voters are probably not even paying attention to the blatant partisanship by the commission members and the attacks from those like Clarke going on in these hearings. We have to remember this, we're a long way from November.

As one pundit said, this might have had more effect had the commission started in September. Ironically, it was the Democrats who wanted to start this investigation earlier, rather than later, when it could be more effective for them.

The Democrats have made one strategeral blunder after another, it's laughable.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I watched the lamestream network newscasts for the first time in 10 years, tonight, only to get a sense of just how the lamestream network media would spin Clarke's patently false testimony.

[Adrastus]

I suppose that would come under the heading of morbid curiosity. These people are so predictable as to be boring beyond belief.

[tkathy]

If this was a white Republican picking on a black Democrat women, the dims would be howling racism to the moon.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I suppose that would come under the heading of morbid curiosity.

It did actually, when they went on to other news, I turned them off and went back to FNC. The highlight of my viewing of the lamestream partisan press was Condi's appearance on NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw. He did his best to get in his liberal jabs with Dr. Rice, asking her why she didn't testify in public but she was a trouper and held her own by saying to Tom "I'm here, ask me ANYTHING you want". Tom didn't ask anything he wanted, he ended the interview. I fell out of my chair laughing.

[Reactionary]

I imagine that Rice did not appear because certain people understood that she was to be the target of this little politicized investigation.

Liberals never miss an opportunity to personalize their attacks. It's nice to know that we didn't give them an opportunity.

[BigSkyFreeper]

She told Tom that she's already testified a total of 4 hours in closed door sessions, because of the classified nature of her testimony. Something the commission will not admit to EVER, in these hearings, as long as the lamestream media is covering it.

[BigSkyFreeper]

She told Tom, that if they want to discuss unclassified evidence, she'd gladly come down there and testify, but the commission so far has only delved into classified items with her, which forces the commission to go behind closed doors without cameras glaring at her.

[Adrastus]

I'm going to have to toughen up some how. If I eat before...well you know. On the other hand if I try to eat afterwards, I'm so aggravated that it spoils my appitite .Besides,my wife says the neighbors take exception to my yelling at the TV.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I don't see how anyone gets angry, disgusted, mad or upset at the lamestream press. I find it hysterical myself. More so than Comedy Central.

One has to look at it from the perspective that few people are watching these rubes, they're out of power, and it's (attacks on Bush) all done in the name of desperation.

On all counts, they're losers.

[Adrastus]

I bow to your superior wisdom. I'll definitly try it. Lord knows, I need a good laugh. Thanks for the help. FR folks always watch out for one another.

[papertyger]

We had my mother-in-law move in with us recently, and she asked to watch the NBC nightly news while fixing dinner two days ago.

Guess I'll patch the clawed drywall this weekend.