David Frum: DICK CLARKE'S AMERICAN GRANDSTAND

National Review Online ^ | 3-24-04 | David Frum

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Finished his book late last night – and have to say that while I began reading it with disapproval, I ended with dismay.

Here is a once great public servant engaging in the shabbiest kind of name-calling and George Soros-style paranoia. (The “Enemies” of the Constitution in the “Against All Enemies” title refers pretty clearly to George Bush and the Bush administration. Clarke goes on to tut-tut over how the Patriot Act has been interpreted as a fascist piece of legislation – without pausing to point out how crazy that interpretation that is or how essential the Patriot Act has been to just the kind of counter-terrorism work that he favors.)

Still, there are things that can be learned from the book. One is that for all the praise that Clarke pours on Bill Clinton personally, he presents an absolutely damning account of the terrorism record of the Clinton administration. Time and time again, he and his team agree that a course of action is vital – up to and including air raids against the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (air raids not cruise missile raids – cruise missiles are slow and gave the Pakistanis time to tip off al Qaeda that the bombs were coming). And nothing happens. Either the bureaucracy refuses to carry out the order or the military drags its feets or (most typically) President Clinton rules out courses of action that carry any risk at all.

Just as Bob Bartley and Barbara Olson predicted at the very onset of the Clinton presidency, so Clarke agrees that Clinton’s ability to defend the country was paralyzed by his personal failings. (Although Clarke shares that strange Clintonian self-pity which adjudged the president’s inaction always to be somebody else’s fault.)

“Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and lamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.” (p. 225.)

Sometimes reading Clarke’s book makes you wonder whether the United States had a president at all between 1993 and 2001. Please excuse the blue language in the following passage.

“On a brisk October day in 2000, [Army Special Forces colonel Mike] Sheehan stood with me on West Executive Avenue and watch[ed] as the limousines left the White House meeting on the Cole attack to go back to the Pentagon. ‘What’s it gonna take, Dick?’ Sheehan demanded. ‘Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell, they won’t even let the Air Force bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention.”

That same Constitution that Clarke accuses George Bush of violating also appoints the president commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

**

On to the Bush material.

Early on, the Bush team made a fateful decision about Clarke. They asked him to stay on at the National Security Council – but demoted him from the high position he had held under Bill Clinton. Clarke had for eight years enjoyed more access to the president than the head of the CIA or FBI. Suddenly he found himself just another NSC senior director.

It’s a general rule of management that you never demote anybody important: You fire them, and fast, or else they will sabotage your organization. If Bush wanted to retain Clarke’s services, he should have kept him in his old job. Failing that, he should have pushed him out the door on the Monday after Inauguration day.

That didn’t happen, for pardonable reasons and not so pardonable. The pardonable reason was the shortness of time: Bush had less than six weeks to complete his transition – the recount plus the ever-increasing sclerosis of the clearing and confirmation process meant that he did not have his own people up and ready to go until the second half of 2001. The not so pardonable reason was a phenomenon I noted in The Right Man: a reluctance to use the hiring and firing power to shape the NSC in favor of the president’s policies. For almost a year, Bush and Condoleezza Rice tried to use Clinton holdovers to carry out Bush’s policies. Unsurprisingly, the experiment has not been a happy one.

**

More important though is that Clarke confirms something else I saw – and that something is the essence of the case for George Bush’s leadership. The core of Clarke’s unhappiness with George Bush is that Bush disregarded the “expert” advice of government professionals after 9/11. Clarke saw 9/11 as a reason to continue and expand the policies of the Clinton years: to hunt down individual terrorists while taking one more whirligig ride on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, so-called, Bush’s breakthrough after 9/11 was his willingness to rethink old assumptions and to consider new and seemingly radical ideas – because only such ideas were equal to the newness and radicalism of the situation.

When a set of ideas are tried over eight years – and result in one of the greatest disasters in American history – you’d think that might tend to discredit those ideas. You’d think so – but as we’re discovering in this campaign season, you’d be wrong.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[nuconvert]

Good article!

"It’s a general rule of management that you never demote anybody important: You fire them, and fast, or else they will sabotage your organization."

I've seen the sabotage that results, myself.

[truthandlife]

Good summary of the book without having to waste time or money on it.

Interesting about the opinion of Frum that one of Bush's mistakes was not firing Clarke. I agree. The campaign Bush ran was that he wanted to bring a new tone to the White House and work with the Dems (the Enemy Within). I think GW underestimated the evil that was brought in under the Clinton administration. With the short transition period and the way the election went down, he probably felt like he would be compassionate and let these guys keep their jobs at a lower level. Bad idea.

Good summary and the truth will prevail in the long run. Clarke will be found out as an opportunist and a sell out to Clinton and the Dems.

[truthandlife]

I really believe that the Dems thought that this 9/11 Commission and these books would sink GW Bush. I think GW's poll numbers will definitely go down the next month but then they will bounce back as soon as the truth is revealed. Bin Laden will be caught in the next few months, Kerry will keep imploding and Bush will still run a flawless Presidential campaign with the world as well as the leftist news media against him. He will win and thank God be our President until 2008.

[GeorgeW23225]

I am dismayed, depressed, distressed, and mad as hell, about the trashing of President Bush though the auspices of the 911 commission, and Richard Clarke. Mr. Clarke has been proved to be a fraud and a liar, and he was treated like a rock star today. Instead of tough questions about the comments Fox News released today via an audiotape (with White House approval) former Senator Bob Kerry made the comment: "Perhaps Fox should change their slogan to "Fair and Balanced occasionally", which was interrupted by loud cheers from the audience.

Apparently, no one cared to question Clarke about "praising President Bush" on the audiotape, and bashing him in his book. Instead, they just bashed Fox News.

Also, less than a week ago, the liberals were calling the President a "cowboy shooting from the hip". Now, they say he didn't do enough, and didn't protect us from the terrorists.

Is it my imagination, or has President Bush been the world leader in fighting terrorists, while Bill Clinton was doing nothing more than "swatting" at flies???

Am I losing my mind, or are the liberals REALLY this desperate for power, that they would weaken our Commander-in-Chief during the War on Terror????

God help us all, if these people get back into power. They will stop at nothing. And that is a frightening thought. VERY frightening!!

My only hope is that the American people see these Bush Bashers for what they are. DANGEROUS LEFT WING NUTS !!!

[Oldeconomybuyer]

In the end, the truth wins every time.

The public hearings held by the "bipartisan" 911 Commission were indeed a political circus. Television cameras make politico's do stupid things. Sen. Kerrey is Exhibit A.

I think behind doors the Commission will do its job and ultimately publish a truthful account of the events leading up to 911 and make recommendations on how to avoid future attacks. Clarke will be but a footnote.

[truthandlife]

are the liberals REALLY this desperate for power, that they would weaken our Commander-in-Chief during the War on Terror????

YES!!! We are dealing with a new element of politics that is so vile and evil that they don't care who they hurt or how they take our country down.

Never underestimate the power of evil.

[Keith]

God bless David Frum. If anyone hasn't read, "The Right Man", you should.

[Wolfstar]

...makes you wonder whether the United States had a president at all between 1993 and 2001...

We didn't have a president during those years. We had an overgrown, aging '60's-era party boy. Someone who never developed past the "if it feels good, do it" mantra of the hippies. However, the party boy always was a cunning opportunist, who, himself, never had any true core ideology. But coming from a Dem-controlled state, he found a way to insinuate himself into that state's power structure, and the rest is sorry history.

If we make the monumental mistake of electing another overgrown, aging, '60's era Dem, this time we'll be getting one who really is driven by Leftist ideology. In terms of selling this country out to the international Left, Kerry would make Clinton look like a choir boy.

[Timothy]

"Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and lamed him."

Please pardon my caps, but....

THE MILITARY MADE MISTAKES?!?!?!?!?!

IS HE SERIOUS?!?!

I'd like to get the response from those soldiers that were there.

[Dante3]

BUMP

[HateBill]

While I agree with most of what Frum writes, Dick Clarke was a holdover of the Reagan and Bush administrations that *Clinton* kept over. How was George W. Bush to know that this registered Republican, who had worked in both Reagan and Bush I White Houses, had turned to the "dark side" during the Stainmaker's reign.

[Swanks]

Early on, the Bush team made a fateful decision about Clarke

Friggin' A. Learn a lesson Bush. See what being a partisan nice guy gets you (and us taxpayers; how much will this 6 month hatchet job cost the taxpayers)

If you are able to win a second term, better clean the Executive branch of the hang-over Clintoon Rats.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Bump #10.

Well said!

[FreedomPoster]

Don't forget, this guy entered government under Reagan, and also served under GHWBush. There wasn't a strong reason to believe it would turn out like this.

[truthandlife]

It could be something else that another poster said on another thread. The truth might be that someone tipped Clarke off that if the Clinton administration got the blame, he was going to be the fall guy. This is classic preemption, Clarke knows the Clintons, and he knows he is uniquely positioned to be bludgeoned by them.

[torchthemummy]

"The not so pardonable reason was a phenomenon I noted in The Right Man: a reluctance to use the hiring and firing power to shape the NSC in favor of the president’s policies. For almost a year, Bush and Condoleezza Rice tried to use Clinton holdovers to carry out Bush’s policies. Unsurprisingly, the experiment has not been a happy one."

Frum is commenting on what our Prez now knows: after he wins this next election he will clean out all vestiges of Clinton-era folks and will in the meanwhile lay traps to expose the former Republican appointees that are inclined towards sabatage or are as such active as I write.

[blue-duncan]

`Was Simon & Schuster the publisher of Hillary Clinton's fiction? Is it also the publisher of Bill Clinton's history revision?

[StriperSniper]

Apparently, no one cared to question Clarke about "praising President Bush" on the audiotape, and bashing him in his book.

While not as much as I hoped, Lehman, Thompson, and another Commisioner slammed him. Lehman who has known him for around 30 years, took almost 10 minutes to elegantly call him a liar. He was disapointed that he had to do it but there was no escaping the truth.

Thompson, hit him with it line by line for part of it. Clarke didn't get a free ride at all.

Now the media may not reflect that reality, but that doesn't change the facts.

Start reading at Post#1552 of todays live thread to see some of the exchanges.