Clarke’s Coziness With the Media Might Help Him Win War With Bush

Washingtonian ^ | March 26, 2004 | Harry Jaffe

[GulliverSwift]

If you want the real book on Richard Clarke—minus the Bush-administration attacks and Clarke’s self-promotion—read Ghost Wars, Steve Coll’s new book on the CIA in Afghanistan.

“His enemies regarded him as not only mean, but dangerous,” writes Coll, managing editor of the Washington Post. “So palpably did he thrive on an air of sinister mystery,” Coll writes, that Clarke chose Oliver North’s old White House office.

Coll is not the first journalist to detect and use Clarke’s knowledge of the sinister and mysterious. While Clarke was White House terrorism czar, he often showed up in news dispatches as an unnamed source. Interviews with reporters on the terrorism beat suggest that Clarke has always been savvy in using the press.

“He was known to be a source for a select group of journalists,” says one print reporter.

Adds a TV reporter: “There were periods when he was available and periods when he went underground.”

Clarke was mentioned by name in nearly 1,000 stories over the years, and he was the unnamed source for many more. Fox News reporter Jim Angle this week outed Clarke as the source of a White House background interview.

“Over the years he’s been in contact with a lot of journalists in town,” says Coll in an interview on Friday. Coll himself spent many hours with Clarke.

Clarke’s history with journalists does not bode well for his detractors in the Bush White House. As they try to discredit Clarke, they are running into journalists who have known him for years. Most reporters came away trusting Clarke.

“Credible?” asked one reporter. “I think he is.”

Coll portrays Clarke as a gruff bureaucratic infighter who did his best to fight terrorism before terrorism was thought to be a real threat.

Coll’s 695-page tome has set the stage for Clarke’s own book—Against All Enemies—and his explosive testimony before the September 11 panel, in which he contended the Bush administration ignored his pleas to combat terrorism before 9/11.

“Clarke revels in public theater,” Coll said in an interview. “A hearing, in the middle of a presidential campaign—he loved it.”

Coll describes Clarke as “a shadowy member of Washington’s permanent intelligence and bureaucratic classes . . . who seemed to wield enormous power precisely because hardly anyone knew who he was or what exactly he did for a living.”

Coll writes that Clarke sometimes acted as a freelance power broker and trickster abroad. When he was at the State Department, investigators “concluded that Clarke had usurped his superiors, turning himself into a one-man foreign policy czar and arms-trafficking shop.”

Clarke worked his way up to become President Clinton’s terrorism czar in 1998, where he began his crusade: “Clarke declared that America faced a new era of terrorist threats for which it was woefully unprepared.”

In an interview, Coll says Clarke’s status was extraordinary: “He’s an amazing figure in that way. He rose effectively to Cabinet rank.”

From that job, Clarke put Osama bin Laden in his crosshairs and “sometimes pushed harder for action on bin Laden than the CIA’s own officers recommended.”

When the Bush administration took over in 2001 and decided to reduce Clarke’s power, Coll writes what Clarke this week told the 9/11 committee: He tried to warn Bush officials that terrorism was a major threat, but they ignored his pleas.

Now that both books are on the stands and Clarke is on TV, Coll has become a reservoir of information for Post reporters looking for guidance on Clarke. Given Coll’s respect for Clarke, it’s fair to assume that he will get fair if not favorable coverage from the Post.

Coll did come away from watching Clarke’s testimony with one question: “It’s a mystery why he chose to deliver the force of his moment so explicitly against the Bush administration,” he says in an interview. “Clinton’s people were involved as well.”

Some would even call it a sinister mystery.

[PhiKapMom]

Most Americans don't believe the journalists or reporters vouching for him are credible either.

Bingo! Looks like the media has the same ego as Clark. Not sure I know anyone that trusts the national media!

[nopardons]

That's exactly what I was thinking. :-)

[onyx]

Clarke's own testimony will prove to be his undoing.
Indict him and prosecute him for perjury.

[bornintexas]

"You don't understand the onslaught going on here. This is slow motion assassination." AH....back with your tired 'ole "positive" spin.

[raloxk]

you dont think it is?

the left istn going to lose this election. if you thought the DUI leak was shocking, just wait

[nopardons]

Who says the polls are accurate?

People were multi-posting the latest Rasmussen poll,the other day. Rasmussen was 100% inaccurate, all through the 2000 election, yet many people here,now, were taking it as gospel.

[PhiKapMom]

Why is it that new posters are always so negative against Pres Bush? Does make one wonder!

Much to your dismay, watch his poll numbers climb again as Clarke is proven to be a first class Liar and Clymer! Polls are meaningless at this time in the election cycle except to RATs who love to tout them.

John "Botox" Kerry is in for the fight of his life and he won't know what hit him because of his arrogance until it is way too late. Maybe he should ask Ma Richards about the Texan that occupies the White House! There is a saying "Don't Mess with Texas" and Kerry and the RATs should heed. The RATs are despicable, arrogant bunch of liars. BTW Clarke's buddy is Kerry's foreign policy advisor -- wonder what Americans will think when they read that.

Out here in the Heartland, our paper, The Oklahoman, has already put out an editorial about the lowlife Clark as follows:

Oklahoman Editorial: Blame game
2004-03-26

WE hope the 9/11 commission's investigation into the intelligence/security failures that let terrorists attack this country in 2001 produces substantial recommendations that will help make America safer in the future.

Frankly, if the panel manages that, we'll be surprised. The committee's two-day hearing this week in Washington had its moments, but overall it looked like politics -- not producing findings that will enhance national security -- was the primary focus. Commissioners on both sides got in their shots, but it seemed like Democrats were intent on depicting the Bush administration -- in office less than eight months when the terrorists struck -- as asleep at the wheel in the summer of 9/11. Testimony of former White House special assistant Richard Clarke, who has a new book that accuses President Bush of not paying enough attention to terrorism, played into that strategy.

Clarke appears to be an earnest man, but his opinions are debatable. Commissioner Slade Gorton cut to the bottom line when he got Clarke to concede that even if the young Bush administration adopted every one of his recommendations, the 9/11 attacks still would have occurred.

It took colossal intelligence failures for 9/11 to be planned and executed without detection by multibillion-dollar federal agencies charged with preventing the same. The commission's real contribution will be in looking to the future, not dwelling on assigning blame, as if anyone with a pre-9/11 mind-set could have anticipated such an attack.

Hindsight is 20-20, but it plays tricks on memories. Some commissioners suggested pre-emptive strikes against al-Qaida in Afghanistan could have been tried, only to be reminded by Bush and Clinton administration officials that before 9/11 it would have been impossible to generate support in Congress or in the international community for such an action.

That's why it would have been better to get the investigation over with long ago, or put it off until after the election. It's just too easy for it to veer off into the political, the irrelevant or both.


http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=1205582&TP=getarticle

[PhiKapMom]

You are so right! Rasumussen was horrible in 2000 -- wouldn't believe them if they told me the sky was blue -- would go check!

[nopardons]

Yet there were people crawling all over those multiple posts,here, having gasping fits about how " we " are gonna lose in November. The dumbing down of FR, is driving me absolutely round the bend! :-(

[COEXERJ145]

I swear, I have yet to see one positive post by you.

[MJY1288]

LOL, You must be new at this! 7 point drops this far out from November mean very little.

Step back from the infighting a minute and look at the big picture. We have an economy on the rise and all indicators show a high probability of long term growth, We have home ownership at the highest level ever. For the first time in our countries history home ownership is above 50%.

We have interest rates at an all time low.

Inflation doesn't exist.

New construction is not at the level it was, but still above anything the 90's gave us.

Employment has no place to go but up and despite all the hand wringers out there, the Employment numbers will be way up by mid summer.

The Democrats know this and their only hope is to discredit George W. Bush's leadership during one the most trying times this Nation has ever faced. By November, the American people will have had enough of the negativity from the left, and they will show their contempt for these power hungry socialist by voting for a man who has more Character and integrity in his baby toe than John Kerry could ever dream of having. That Man is George W. Bush and he will win in a landslide of monumental proportions

[cyncooper]

When the Bush administration took over in 2001 and decided to reduce Clarke’s power, Coll writes what Clarke this week told the 9/11 committee: He tried to warn Bush officials that terrorism was a major threat, but they ignored his pleas.

Oh, the power of the internet:

Preparing for The Next Pearl Harbor Attack (JUNE 2001, Bush team addressing terrorism threat)

[raloxk]

"LOL, You must be new at this! 7 point drops this far out from November mean very little."

Actually is isnt, if Clarke comes across as credibile to the average person who doesnt pay attention. Bush still has yet to recover from Dr. Kays testimony when he dropped 10 points in the polls.

[cyncooper]

Those same journalists thought Clinton was credible, too.

[Dane]

I got caught up in poll hysteria in 2000. This year I take a general glance(such as sample size and who they poll such as adults or reagistered or likely voters) and don't fret or celebrate over them.

The race really starts after the conventions, but that doesn't stop people like ralox from pontificating their "doom and gloom" while ignoring the issues totally.

[MJY1288]

"the left istn going to lose this election. if you thought the DUI leak was shocking, just wait"

ROFLMAO, The DUI leak wasn't shocking you DU troll, it was a joke. George W. Bush did something you and your liberal friends could never do. He admitted his mistakes of the past (27 year old mistake) and said, "Yes, The DUI story is true, it happened 27 years ago and here is why I didn't disclose it"

That's something rarely seen from a liberal, they reflexively try to deny it.

[PhiKapMom]

Driving me nuts too -- handwringing that goes on is beyond my comprehension. Told some people the other day to go out and volunteer and quit whining. For people that are supposed to be political savvy, there is an awful lot of doom and gloom not to mention they believe what the media is saying or the polls -- amazing!

Funniest was last year when they started quoting the NY Times and got worried about Pres Bush's numbers. Just shook my head.

We have one on this thread -- newby that never posts anything positive about President Bush. Wish I had the eject button!

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Media Polls most always favor the left. They have a method of selecting data that they know beforehand will show the result they are looking for.

The dynamics of this election will be beyond any this nation has seen in it's entire history.

Look for conservatives to appear from out of nowhere and vote for Bush. The hate and anger from the Democrats is going to be their downfall. Moderates and conservatives don't like negative politics and they make up about 70% of the voting population.

The liberal media still believes they can change public opinion by showing poll results that project their agenda. The public is so very aware of that bias and ironically, there are polls that prove it. Over 65% of the public believe Kerry is only telling us what he thinks we want to hear, not what he truly believes.

Does anyone with even half a brain think this is a quality voters want from a President?

[Dane]

Actually is isnt, if Clarke comes across as credibile to the average person who doesnt pay attention.

If you actually read all the evidence of Clarke posted here on FR, you would see that he is not.

Condi Rice this weekend will even put more doubt about your meglomaniac hero, Richard Clarke.

[nopardons]

Unless you are a retread, you haven't been on FR even 2 full months.

You have yet to post anything but negative drivel.

Polls in March,mean less than NOTYHING And the " average " voter doesn't know a thing about Dr,Kay, or even little Dickie Clarke. Even should they watch ABCNBCCBS,for their daily dose of news, it's in one ear and out the other, at this stage of the game.