Posted on 03/26/2004 10:03:04 PM PST by GulliverSwift
If you want the real book on Richard Clarkeminus the Bush-administration attacks and Clarkes self-promotionread Ghost Wars, Steve Colls 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 Norths old White House office.
Coll is not the first journalist to detect and use Clarkes 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 hes been in contact with a lot of journalists in town, says Coll in an interview on Friday. Coll himself spent many hours with Clarke.
Clarkes 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.
Colls 695-page tome has set the stage for Clarkes own bookAgainst All Enemiesand 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 campaignhe loved it.
Coll describes Clarke as a shadowy member of Washingtons 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 Clintons 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 Clarkes status was extraordinary: Hes 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 CIAs own officers recommended.
When the Bush administration took over in 2001 and decided to reduce Clarkes 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 Colls respect for Clarke, its fair to assume that he will get fair if not favorable coverage from the Post.
Coll did come away from watching Clarkes testimony with one question: Its a mystery why he chose to deliver the force of his moment so explicitly against the Bush administration, he says in an interview. Clintons people were involved as well.
Some would even call it a sinister mystery.
PKMom, In my best Harry Truman voice "What we have here is, is a liberal dragged from his shameful closet"
:-)
Did I guess right? From an earlier post of mine - Destro's Thesis: Paul ONeil then Richard Clarke point to something I have observed for a while now. There is an active revolt by the beaurocratic careerists and other Washington establishment types who are actively out to get Bush.
Why?
Because for the last few decades the religion/operating philosophy of these types have been multilateralisim. They are a diverse group. Some are pro United Nations and are angry that Bush has cut the UN off (In this bracket I will place Clarke). Others are heavily invested in NATO and Europe's EU (In this bracket I will place Paul ONeil) and are not very happy that Bush has cut off NATO's core countries (specifically Germany) and has made nice with Russia - a nation these NATOites want to cut apart and exploit like the "good old days" under Yeltsin.
These beaurocratic careerists and other Washington establishment types come from both the Republicans and the Democrats. This cabal does not serve to preserve the Constitution...they serve other masters/interests. Remember Clinton's Strobe Talbot's comments that we were headed for a "The Birth of the Global Nation "? (see article below).
No historian of American politics has ever seen such a back stabbing orgy as we have witnessed against this president. It is not a coincidence. It is orchestrated. I do not think Kerry behind this per say but rather he is a passive beneficiary.
These powers that be hope that by helping elect Kerry they will make him beholden to their globalist agenda.
You just made my burst out laughing with that one! He doesn't even know what he is posting that sounds liberal -- that made me laugh too!
If you watch the polls, and you surely do, you will notice that President Bush stays strongly above 48%.
Even in a liberal manipulated and skewed poll, they cannot disguise that 48% that is the un-moving base.
As far as 2000, The Dems stuffed the ballot boxes in countless districts controlled by the Rats. The only way to get a "Pregnant chad" is by putting several ballots together and punching them all at once. It is also suspicious that only heavily populated Democrat voting districts showed these phenomenon on their ballots.
There are new voting machines that cannot be tampered with this time around. I firmly believe that if they were in place in 2000, Bush would have won quite handily in all the close and contested states.
And do at least try to learn something, from your time here. :-)
First off, you don't speak for most Americans, Most Americans wouldn't speak to you, because you don't share in this dream we call America. You, like every other liberal, blame America first and base everything on feelings instead of principles.
If you claim not to be a liberal, do me a favor, just STF out of the way while the rest of us take this country back from these no count liberals. Just vote for Dubya and stand back and watch the 40 year old strangle hold the liberals had on this country, disappear :-)
FYI...Ronald Reagan, at this point in his first term, had lower poll numbers,in EVERY poll, than President Bush has right now and there was NO FNC then, NO Internet, NO national talk radio shows and NO FR!
How can you "believe in history", when you don't know any?
I understand what you are saying. It is a long way till November. If Clarke says Clinton did better than Bush and people believe it, it does not matter very much because Clinton is not running for office. It's Bush vs. Kerry and Kerry is the one whose track record on terrorism matters. And Kerry's record is terrible.
Condi Rice is really the main one under attack. It is up to her to fight for her reputation and that of the Administration. She HAS to prevail for the sake of the election and history. It is part of her job now. I will be disappointed if she does not keep after this for as LONG as it takes to discredit Clark and get those poll numbers back up.
I understand what you are saying. It is a long way till November. If Clarke says Clinton did better than Bush and people believe it, it does not matter very much because Clinton is not running for office. It's Bush vs. Kerry and Kerry is the one whose track record on terrorism matters. And Kerry's record is terrible.
Condi Rice is really the main one under attack. It is up to her to fight for her reputation and that of the Administration. She HAS to prevail for the sake of the election and history. It is part of her job now. I will be disappointed if she does not keep after this for as LONG as it takes to discredit Clark and get those poll numbers back up.
JMO, but predicitng something 7 months before is not being "realistic". A lot of things can and will happen.
I guess you think that Miss Cleo is also "realistic".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.