Replies

Clarke's Terror Contentions Close to Absurd
By Frank Salvato
March 25, 2004

Richard Clarke's new book, as related in his interview on 60 Minutes, accuses the Bush Administration of being so inept that anyone who isn't legally blind can see it is politically motivated. In a book released suspiciously close to an election cycle, the former counterterrorism official, a holdover from the Clinton Administration, comes out swinging at the President and his inner circle while going very light on his former boss, Bill Clinton. He does this even though Clinton was responsible for a plethora of oversights regarding al Qaida including botching several opportunities to have Osama bin Laden's head on a plate. So, much to the liberal-left's dismay, this can only be viewed as another disingenuous and deceitful hatchet job by the DNC, Terry McAuliffe, and the liberally biased elite media, a tactic all of them have used many times in the past.

In excerpts from his book, and during an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, Clarke claims everything that came out of the Bush White House after September 11th was focused on Iraq. This is a strange contention at best. Clarke speaks as if no one remembers the events of that day. I am here to say he is sadly mistaken.

I remember quite clearly watching the news that day. How could it be avoided? I remember being glued to the news stations feeding on every bit of information the media had to offer. I recall learning bit-by-media-fed-bit that our government targeted Osama bin Laden and al Qaida as the ones responsible for the attacks and that they even approached the Afghani government quite quickly about his whereabouts. I remember reports of it being conveyed beyond a shadow of a doubt to the Afghani government the severity of the repercussions should they be harboring bin Laden and his inner circle. And I remember the Taliban spokesman denying any knowledge of al Qaida or Osama bin Laden even as al Qaida issued statements of responsibility.

I remember President Bush addressing the nation for the second time that fateful day to explain who did this. At no time did I ever hear the words "Iraq" or "Saddam Hussein" but from the media. If the Bush Administration truly wanted to lay blame at the feet of Saddam Hussein for September 11th why would they have even mentioned bin Laden, al Qaida, the Taliban or Afghanistan? Conversely, if they wanted to lay the blame at the feet of Saddam Hussein why wouldn't they have centered the President's speech to the American public that day on Hussein's government and Iraq? It doesn't add up.

Clarke accuses National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice of being ignorant to the fact al Qaida actually existed. This comes as quite a surprise seeing as she had mentioned the terrorist organization in lectures on terrorism prior to her White House service. Enough said about that.

He accuses Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of saying on September 12th there were no good targets in Afghanistan and that there were better ones in Iraq. Anyone who understands the way the Pentagon works at Rumsfeld's level can see through this statement. When a Secretary of Defense gets orders to achieve a battle plan he calls upon his Joint Chiefs of Staff who in turn call upon the best within their respective branches of the armed forces to construct several battle scenarios. With all the intelligence the Pentagon had from the decade-plus war between the Afghan Rebels and the former Soviet Union and even from providing limited and covert support to the Taliban regime in their fight against our Cold War foe, it would be inconceivable that we wouldn't know almost every site worth hitting in Afghanistan. As Operation Enduring Freedom proved, there were plenty of targets in Afghanistan, so Clarke's assertions are at the least puzzling and at best fraudulently spun.

Clarke said in his interview with 60 Minutes that, "The President dragged me into another room, along with a few other people, and asked me to find out whether Iraq was involved." This statement made me raise an eyebrow. The questions have to be asked, why would a sitting President of the United States have to drag anyone into any other room than the Oval Office or the Situation Room, probably the most secure rooms in the world, in order to have a sensitive conversation? Where would the President have "dragged" Mr. Clarke? A broom closet? A super-secret invisible room that no one else knows about? The room that Bill Clinton used to molest Monica Lewinski? As with the Pentagon, anyone with the slightest shred of understanding of how the White House works knows the President just doesn't go around "dragging" people into side rooms and clandestine closets in order to talk secretly to them unless he has the scruples of a slug, a cigar and no intentions of talking at all. The idea that Clarke was "dragged" anywhere is suspect at best.

This book looks to be something of a "C.Y.A." attempt in light of the fact Mr. Clarke was the counterterrorism expert in the Clinton White House. During the eight years he spent in that position we saw the first World Trade Center bombings, the bombing of US embassies around the world, the bombing of the USS Cole, the proliferation of al Qaida throughout the Muslim world and the repeated failure to capture Osama bin Laden even though foreign countries were offering him up on a sliver platter. If I were Richard Clarke and I had presided over such incredible failures in counterterrorism I would be looking for a scapegoat as well.

The assertions made in Richard Clarke's book, and especially the timing of its release, are so suspect and transparent in their motivation it is laughable. The mainstream media has gotten so used to stuffing inane garbage and political sensationalism down our throats it seems they have missed the moment many of us got bored with the headlines in the checkout lines at the supermarkets and opted for truth in news. While Clarke's assertions may be laughable, what is not laughable and is in fact quite sad and infuriating is that the mainstream media would give face time to someone so politically jaded. What is even more sad and more infuriating is that there are those out there who will choose to believe this because they have embraced hate toward President Bush; one trick political ponies who hate because they don't have the courage to embrace what needs to be done to make our world safer.

The Bush-haters and the liberal-left in this country, and around the world, would be making a huge mistake by embracing the bitterness of Richard Clarke. At best his accusations are nothing more than opinionated rage from someone who not only is an ardent John Kerry supporter and outspoken opponent of the Iraqi military action but someone who is trying to sell a book during a small window of opportunity in time. Alleged facts that are based in opportunism are seldom ever based in reality as well. It is time for the liberal-left to vilify those who spew hatred toward the President. They are starting to look more foolish than ever.

This book looks to be something of a "C.Y.A." attempt in light of the fact Mr. Clarke was the counterterrorism expert in the Clinton White House. During the eight years he spent in that position we saw the first World Trade Center bombings, the bombing of US embassies around the world, the bombing of the USS Cole, the proliferation of al Qaida throughout the Muslim world and the repeated failure to capture Osama bin Laden even though foreign countries were offering him up on a sliver platter.
If I were Richard Clarke and I had presided over such incredible failures in counterterrorism I would be looking for a scapegoat as well.

Wow! This is a very strong indictment of Richard Clarke's "counterterrorism" career!

If I were Richard Clarke and I had presided over such incredible failures in counterterrorism I would be looking for a scapegoat as well.

The obvious conclusion!

Frank Salvato is a FReeper whose screen name is TheRant. Thought I'd ping him to the posting of his terrific article even though he hasn't been around FR much in the past couple of months. :o)