Mark Steyn: Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction

The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 03/28/04 | Mark Steyn

[Pokey78]

In January 2002, the Enron story broke and the media turned their attention to the critical question: how can we pin this on Bush? As I wrote in this space that weekend: "Short answer: You can't."

So Enron retreated to the business pages, and, after a while, the media and the Democrats came up with an even better wheeze: how can we pin September 11 on Bush? Same answer: you can't. But that doesn't stop them every month or so from taking a wild ride on defective vehicles for their crazy scheme.

The latest is a mid-level bureaucrat called Richard Clarke, and by the time you read this his 15 minutes should be just about up. Mr Clarke was Bill Clinton's terrorism guy for eight years and George W Bush's for a somewhat briefer period, and he has now written a book called If Only They'd Listened to Me - whoops, sorry, that should be Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror - What Really Happened (Because They Didn't Listen to Me).

Having served both the 42nd and 43rd Presidents, Clarke was supposed to be the most authoritative proponent to advance the Democrats' agreed timeline of the last decade - to whit, from January 1993 to January 2001, Bill Clinton focused like a laser on crafting a brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, but, alas, just as he had dotted every "i", crossed every "t" and sent the intern to the photocopier, his eight years was up, so Bill gave it to the new guy as he was showing him the Oval Office - "That carpet under the desk could use replacing. Oh, and here's my brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, which you guys really need to implement right away."

The details of the brilliant plan need not concern us, which is just as well, as there aren't any. But the broader point, as The New York Times noted, is that "there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism".

Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.

Richard Clarke was supposed to be the expert who could make this argument with a straight face. And, indeed, his week started well. The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush's incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, 'Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.' "

Mr Clarke would seem to be channelling Leslie Nielsen's deadpan doctor in Airplane!: "Stewardess, we need to get this passenger to a hospital."

"A hospital? What is it?"

"It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."

As it turns out, Clarke's ability to read "facial expressions" is not as reliable as one might wish in a "counter-terrorism expert". In October the previous year, Dr Rice gave an interview to WJR Radio in Detroit in which she discoursed authoritatively on al-Qa'eda and bin Laden - and without ever having met Richard Clarke!

I don't know how good Clarke was at counter-terrorism, but as a media performer he is a total dummy. He seemed to think that he could claim the lucrative star role of Lead Bush Basher without anybody noticing the huge paper trail of statements he has left contradicting the argument in his book.

The reality is that there is a Richard Clarke for everyone. If you are like me and reckon there was an Islamist angle to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, then Clarke's your guy: he supports the theory that al-Qa'eda operatives in the Philippines "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building".

On the other hand, if you're one of those Michael Moore-type conspirazoids who wants to know why Bush let his cronies in the House of Saud and the bin Laden family sneak out of America on September 11, then Clarke's also your guy: he is the official who gave the go-ahead for the bigshot Saudis with the embarrassing surnames to be hustled out of the country before they could be questioned.

Does this mean Clarke is Enron - an equal-opportunity scandal whose explicitly political aspects are too ambiguous to offer crude party advantage? Not quite. Although his book sets out to praise Clinton and bury Bush, he can't quite pull it off. Except for his suggestion to send in a team of "ninjas" to take out Osama, Clinton had virtually no interest in the subject.

In October 2000, Clarke and Special Forces Colonel Mike Sheehan leave the White House after a meeting to discuss al-Qa'eda's attack on the USS Cole: "'What's it gonna take, Dick?' Sheehan demanded. 'Who the s*** do they think attacked the Cole, f****** Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Does al-Qa'eda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?'"

Apparently so. The attack, on the Cole, which killed 17 US sailors, was deemed by Clinton's Defence Secretary Bill Cohen as "not sufficiently provocative" to warrant a response. You'll have to do better than that, Osama! So he did. And now the same people who claim Bush had no right to be "pre-emptive" about Iraq insist he should have been about September 11.

As for Clarke's beef with Bush, that's simple. For eight years, he had pottered away on the terrorism brief undisturbed. The new President took it away from him and adopted the strategy outlined by Condoleezza Rice in that Detroit radio interview, months before the self-regarding Mr Clarke claims he brought her up to speed on who bin Laden was: "We really need a stronger policy of holding the states accountable that support him," Dr Rice told WJR. "Terrorists who are just operating out there without basis and without state support are a lot less dangerous than ones that find safe haven, as bin Laden does sometimes in places like Afghanistan or Sudan."

Just so. In the 1990s when al-Qa'eda blew up American targets abroad, the FBI would fly in and work it as a "crime scene" - like a liquor-store hold-up in Cleveland. It doesn't address the problem. Sure, there are millions of disaffected young Muslim men, but, if they get the urge to blow up infidels, they need training and organisation. Somehow all those British Taliban knew that if you wanted a quick course in jihad studies Afghanistan was the place to go. Bush got it right: go to where the terrorists are, overthrow their sponsoring regimes, destroy their camps, kill their leaders.

Instead, all the Islamists who went to Afghanistan in the 1990s graduated from Camp Osama and were dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and North America, where they lurk to this day. That's the Clarke-Clinton legacy. And, if it were mine, I wouldn't be going around boasting about it.

[Ruth A.]

This is even better than the hours I spent at the beach this afternoon. You are a tonic, Mr. Steyn.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Mark Steyn might wish this was true

Steyn called the implosion of Howard Dean pretty well.

I suspect that Steyn may have an even lower opinion of the long-run campaigning ability of John Kerry. Senator Kerry tried and failed to win the Governorship of Massachusetts, and has been longer (at 20 years) in statewide office without attaining national office than anyone who ever was elected president.

IOW, he is stale, he is not a comer. In contrast to GWB, who first attained statewide office less than 8 years before winning the White House. And Kerry's highest executive experience was at the level of Naval Lieutenant in charge of a motorboat, back in the 1960s - and and seeks to embarass a former National Guard fighter pilot by boasting of his own medals when his opponent has been awarding such medals, and higher, for 4 years.

And of course the Democrats' record of having contested the election, retaken the Senate by Jumpin' Jim, and fought a rearguard action to prevent Bush from doing much of anything in his first year just might penetrate the skulls of a few sheeple.

[CyberAnt]

BINGO!

And .. remember - Clarke had the direct ear of WJC, and when Bush came into office all that changed. I believe Clarke was expecting to get Condi's job - instead he was required to report to her. There are emails asking him why he didn't attend her meetings. Evidently, it was beneath him. I think we should add arrogance to his list of smarmy characteristics.

[txhurl]

it's a little too pat for my palate,

fly ----> spider bump.

[CyberAnt]

If you didn't hear or read Frist's speech in the Senate, you need to; they will declassify Clarke's statements and investigate. Remember, Frist marches to the President's instructions. Don't mess with Texas!!

Also Porter Goss (chair of House intel & 9/11 comm), is also doing the same.

Chris Shays is also launching an investigation.

I think Clark is toast.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Instead, all the Islamists who went to Afghanistan in the 1990s graduated from Camp Osama and were dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and North America, where they lurk to this day. That's the Clarke-Clinton legacy.

But who's informing the public? The main media is doing a good job promoting Clarke's "truthfulness."

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for the ping! Enjoyed reading this!

[MEG33]

Mark Steyn writes another gem!

[alwaysconservative]

As a political tactic, one thing I found especially worrisome was Bill First's announcement that Clarke has no right to apologize for the intelligence failures preceding 9/11. This is a politically tone-deaf statement if I ever heard one - the problem is that in this case there clearly *were* serious mistakes, and a lot of them, made by two Administrations over a decade.

I respectfully disagree. It was presumptuous in the extreme for the overweaning Clarke to accept responsibility (on behalf of the eeeeevil Bushies, of course) for 9-11, and then proffer his apologies "on behalf of the government" (for which he no longer spoke), and especially when he knew his public and private statements about what the two administrations had done were at such variance. The people of this nation saw how our President acted after 9-11, and know that Dicky Clarke didn't say boo until he was demoted by Condi. He is a rank, smelly opportunist. It was incredibly offensive for him to purport to speak for "the government", and Frist was right to call him on it.

[CyberAnt]

All I have heard is that any book written by a former employee of the WH - or admin - the book has to be vetted by somebody (not sure who - maybe FBI), to be sure there is no secret stuff being revealed.

Whoever this entity was who perused the book - it wasn't a the WH admin person.

To say the Bush admin had a copy of the book is pretty misleading; which of course was Jane's intent.

[taxesareforever]

Another super article by a super columnist.

[arasina]

Thank you both. That explains it for me. I had forgotten about the "vetting" process since Clarke was in a sensitive position at the White House. Jane, in a simple comment, made it seem like they had the entire book for all these months.

[potlatch]

At least we know what the A stands for.

Being a lady, I'm not going to voice my opinion of what A stands for in regard to Clarke, LOL.

[mrustow]

Thanks, Pokey. Clarke must be repeatedly discredited, every time his name or his claims come up, from now til November 2. And his claims will come up, again and again.

And let's see that classified, 2002 testimony.

[LoudRepublicangirl]

What I would like to know is why Clinton was not drug through the mud regarding the Oklahoma City bombing? That happened on his watch. Shouldn't he have done more to prevent it? Okay that sounds ridiculous-just as ridiculous as those who are trying to pin 9-11 on President Bush.

[Jorge]

LOL! I read the first few paragraphs and that was enough. I will definitely save this and print it out at work for my fellow conservatives.

Everytime the Dems manufacture a smear campaign against Bush it blows up in their face. I love it.

The best revenge against these backstabbing lying Bush haters will be a huge Bush win in Nov.
I really believe Iraq will continue on the right track, the economy will continue to improve and the jobs situation will pick up this year. That will be the bottom line in a Bush victory. Keep praying for him!

[Imal]

OK. But what does the enable Administration do *differently*? Rove was already running a campaign based on highlighting exactly this issue, I don't see that addiotnal media attentoin to Clarke (and other critics) increases the Adminsitrations control over the agenda.

The Bush campaign has been catching flak for even modest references to terrorism. Before Clarke, Democrats complaining about Bush using 9-11 in his ads was actually considered headline news, remember?

Now the flood gates have been forced open.

Most of the power of this shift in the dynamic won't find its way directly into TV commercials, however, but rather alternative media, word of mouth and the occasional slip by the commercial news organs. It will become common knowledge, an undertone to the campaign, a given assumption.

But it will be on peoples' minds as they enter the voting booths.

So grab some popcorn and enjoy the show, because it's only going to get more interesting as we go along.

Both parties are saving their best fireworks for last, I assure you.

[Pokey78]

Both added.

[ontos-on]

If Bush had won in 1992, I actually think that Dick Cheney would have been elected president in 1996. He would not have gone to Haliburton and hopefully would have taken better care of his heart etc. He did flirt with runnning in 1996 butit did not go anywhere. However, with a Bush victory in 1992, the situation would have been very different. His star power from the Persian Gulf War would have been seen as a heavy credit in that election. The world would have been different and alternative histories only go so far.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I think it took the event to shake the changes that are being implemented.

Absolutely, without 9/11 we would not have invaded Afghanistan.