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.

[swilhelm73]

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.”

Isn't that when he started claiming that cyberterror was the real future danger?

[swilhelm73]

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.”

Isn't that when he started claiming that cyberterror was the real future danger?

[Utah Girl]

This makes me ill. So Clarke has cultivated the media through all of this. And that makes it OK for him to skew the facts and frankly, lie. I think he believes the ego strokes he is getting right now, I think his easy access to clinton made him think he was a national security god. And then when President Bush came along and made changes, and he wasn't part of those changes, well...if only someone would have listened to him all of this wouldn't have happened.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Barf alert needed!

This guy was on an Ego Trip!

[MJY1288]

There is one big problem, Clarke isn't running for President, That long faced retard is

[tessalu]

Clarke has chinched for me that I will vote for Bush.
I had hoped that the Democrats would produce a decent candidate, and they have only shown us what the cats have dragged in.

[MJY1288]

Before this is over, Richard Clarke will make Jayson Blair look ethical

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Qwinn]

"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.”

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

Qwinn

[Dolphy]

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

Clarke's largest detractor may well be his conflicting sworn testimony.

[Qwinn]

To us, yes.

To the Left, he'll always be a hero, because the Left thinks they never lose an argument until they admit it. The same goes for the credibility of their "heroes".

I mean, look at the way they still defend Alger Hiss, beyond any and all evidence, fact or reason. The evidence that the guy was a Soviet Spy was overwhelming 50 years ago, and it's ten times as overwhelming today.

No. As anyone can easily see, the Left believes they hold the only key to Truth. As long as they don't admit that Clarke is a perjuring egomaniac, he will be hailed as an honest and wonderful hero, afforded all matter of awards and praise in the halls of the Ivy League, even if all empirical evidence proved beyond doubt that he raped a dozen women and attended dinner parties with Jeffrey Dommer. It's their standard operating procedure.

Qwinn

[CedarDave]

Check out this thread:

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

[blackbart.223]

"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."

If Clarke was deep undercover why was he blabbing to The "Press" about it?

[McGavin999]

Well, if the media trusts him so much that means the American people won't.

[montag813]

I think his easy access to clinton made him think he was a national security god.

When everyone is unarmed, the man with the BB gun feels powerful.

[okie01]

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.

Leak-ping.

Richard Clarke and Joseph C. Wilson IV
Washington's Ultimate Power Couple

[MJY1288]

You are talking about the rabid left who dream of the day when we have no american government and who long for the day when we have a global tax and global government. They represent less than 20% of the left. The 60% that represents the middle America, are people who pay little attention to this ugly game we call politics, they see the facts and don't get to worried about some fool who thinks George W. Bush is to blame for 9/11. If Ray Charles can see through this lying sack of shiite (AKA Richard Clarke) The American people will have little trouble doing so :-)

[raloxk]

then why has Bush dropped 7 points in the polls in only 3 days? You dont understand the onslaught going on here. This is a slow motion assassination

[GottaLuvAkitas1]

Well, if the media trusts him so much that means the American people won't.

VERY good point!