RICHARD CLARKE EITHER IS .. OR WAS .. A LIAR

Info on Richard Clarke...

As I've looked into news stories about Mr. Clarke and his past comments there were numerous articles which quoted other people saying that Mr. Clarke was "blunt" and "very honest" and that his bluntness didn't earn him the affection of many people.

If this is the case, how can Mr. Clarke expect the nation to believe he went out in August of 2002 and trumpeted the White House talking points, only focusing on the positive?

Moreover, how can Mr. Clarke, with his numerous quotes in Mr. Miniter's book, expect us to believe the Clinton Administration was doing everything to combat terror?

From the following sources:

http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20030129S0004
"WASHINGTON (AP)--Richard A. Clarke, a blunt-spoken White House adviser who raised warnings about Islamic terrorism and biological weapons years before they became nightmare headlines, will resign from government soon, people familiar with his plans said."

"...said Sandy Berger, Clinton's former national security adviser and Clarke's former boss. "He's not an easy guy. He's very demanding. More than once people would come to me and complain, but that's why I wanted Dick in that job: He was pushing the bureaucracy."

"Clarke was "a bulldog of a bureaucrat," wrote former national security adviser Anthony Lake in a book two years ago. He said Clarke has "a bluntness toward those at his level that has not earned him universal affection."

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030901-102358-9367r.htm

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?from=search&item_id=390571

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?from=search&item_id=302647

"Last week, Richard Clarke had finally had enough. Testifying Tuesday before a congressional subcommittee, Clarke blasted the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for failing to keep cybersecurity at the top of their agendas. Clarke's the man who should know: Before he retired from the job in February, he was the federal government's infrastructure security czar and came up with the national strategy for protecting cyberspace.

Clarke has a reputation as a loose cannon who despises bureaucracy and loathes government regulation of business. He reportedly quit in February because he wasn't offered a job in the new Homeland Security Department with as much clout as he had before. He's certainly no shrinking violet. And when it comes to cybersecurity, Clarke decidedly is an alarmist."

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?from=search&item_id=275000

"Some former staffers in the Clinton White House understand that an opportunity was missed in the 1990s. Richard Clarke, former National Security Council counterterrorism chief, said his office urged destruction of the terrorist camps in Afghanistan after the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole. The request was denied. In an interview with the PBS show “Frontline” (excerpted recently in The Weekly Standard ), Clarke said, “That's the one thing that we recommended that didn't happen — the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.” Destroying the camps, Clarke said, would have cut the “conveyor belt that was producing terrorists.…So many, many trained and indoctrinated al-Qaida terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn't have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier.”

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?from=search&item_id=308835

"Richard Clarke, who served as White House coordinator for counterterrorism under President Clinton, told congressional investigators that in 2000, he visited a half-dozen FBI field offices and asked agents what they were doing about Al Qaeda. "I got sort of blank looks of, 'What is Al Qaeda?' " he said"

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?item_id=125597&pageId=2

"By late November, the amount of intelligence pouring in was overwhelming, and CTC staffers understood why. For years, their efforts at fighting terror had vied with a dozen other priorities of U.S. foreign policy. But the message from Washington now was clear. "No nation can be neutral in this conflict," declared President Bush. "You're either with us or you're against us." The results were immediate. "Before 9/11, the cooperation was halfhearted," recalls Richard Clarke, the top counterterrorism official at the National Security Council at the time of the attack. "But now everyone knew the president had a blank check to do whatever he wanted." From the Indian government came intercepts of al Qaeda-tied militants in Kashmir; from Italy, wiretapped conversations of Islamic radicals in Milan; from Sudan, long-awaited files on bin Laden operatives once headquartered in Khartoum. Much to the delight of old pros at the CIA, intelligence arrived even from old foes, among them Libya and Syria."

What was he supposed to do, quit?

If he were truly "an American hero" as you stated earlier, then yes, that is exactly what he should have done. He should have quit and shouted from the rooftops that Bush and his administration were ignoring the threat of terrorism. But instead he lies to the public....either while he was still with the administration or now. He has no credibility whatsoever.

Don't recall but Clarke must be money hungry to do this.

OK, here's my theory about the 2 Clarkes:

Have you ever had a negative experience with someone you have known and liked for years? Did it affect how you viewed your earlier experiences with that person? Did you think "Oh, now that explains what they meant 3 years ago."

That could be how Richard Clarke is thinking.

It all centers on his disapproval of the war with Iraq.
He resigned in late Feb 2003, right about the time the Iraq war seemed inevitable. Prior to this, all of his evaluations of the Bush administration were positive (both pre and post 9/11).

After this point he is critical of Bush's efforts (or the supposed lack thereof) both pre and post 9/11.

It is obvious that his disagreement over Iraq has retroactively colored his opinion of the Bush administration, even to the point that he can go back and read something negative into Condi Rice's facial expression and President Bush's words.
So for Clarke, his new statements on Bush and co are not lies, they are true for him in light of his new, negative opiinion based on his disapproval of the Iraq war.

Interesting....thanks