Mark Steyn: Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction

The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 03/28/04 | Mark Steyn

[Pokey78]

In January 2002, the Enron story broke and the media turned their attention to the critical question: how can we pin this on Bush? As I wrote in this space that weekend: "Short answer: You can't."

So Enron retreated to the business pages, and, after a while, the media and the Democrats came up with an even better wheeze: how can we pin September 11 on Bush? Same answer: you can't. But that doesn't stop them every month or so from taking a wild ride on defective vehicles for their crazy scheme.

The latest is a mid-level bureaucrat called Richard Clarke, and by the time you read this his 15 minutes should be just about up. Mr Clarke was Bill Clinton's terrorism guy for eight years and George W Bush's for a somewhat briefer period, and he has now written a book called If Only They'd Listened to Me - whoops, sorry, that should be Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror - What Really Happened (Because They Didn't Listen to Me).

Having served both the 42nd and 43rd Presidents, Clarke was supposed to be the most authoritative proponent to advance the Democrats' agreed timeline of the last decade - to whit, from January 1993 to January 2001, Bill Clinton focused like a laser on crafting a brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, but, alas, just as he had dotted every "i", crossed every "t" and sent the intern to the photocopier, his eight years was up, so Bill gave it to the new guy as he was showing him the Oval Office - "That carpet under the desk could use replacing. Oh, and here's my brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda, which you guys really need to implement right away."

The details of the brilliant plan need not concern us, which is just as well, as there aren't any. But the broader point, as The New York Times noted, is that "there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism".

Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa'eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.

Richard Clarke was supposed to be the expert who could make this argument with a straight face. And, indeed, his week started well. The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush's incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qa'eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, 'Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.' "

Mr Clarke would seem to be channelling Leslie Nielsen's deadpan doctor in Airplane!: "Stewardess, we need to get this passenger to a hospital."

"A hospital? What is it?"

"It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."

As it turns out, Clarke's ability to read "facial expressions" is not as reliable as one might wish in a "counter-terrorism expert". In October the previous year, Dr Rice gave an interview to WJR Radio in Detroit in which she discoursed authoritatively on al-Qa'eda and bin Laden - and without ever having met Richard Clarke!

I don't know how good Clarke was at counter-terrorism, but as a media performer he is a total dummy. He seemed to think that he could claim the lucrative star role of Lead Bush Basher without anybody noticing the huge paper trail of statements he has left contradicting the argument in his book.

The reality is that there is a Richard Clarke for everyone. If you are like me and reckon there was an Islamist angle to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, then Clarke's your guy: he supports the theory that al-Qa'eda operatives in the Philippines "taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building".

On the other hand, if you're one of those Michael Moore-type conspirazoids who wants to know why Bush let his cronies in the House of Saud and the bin Laden family sneak out of America on September 11, then Clarke's also your guy: he is the official who gave the go-ahead for the bigshot Saudis with the embarrassing surnames to be hustled out of the country before they could be questioned.

Does this mean Clarke is Enron - an equal-opportunity scandal whose explicitly political aspects are too ambiguous to offer crude party advantage? Not quite. Although his book sets out to praise Clinton and bury Bush, he can't quite pull it off. Except for his suggestion to send in a team of "ninjas" to take out Osama, Clinton had virtually no interest in the subject.

In October 2000, Clarke and Special Forces Colonel Mike Sheehan leave the White House after a meeting to discuss al-Qa'eda's attack on the USS Cole: "'What's it gonna take, Dick?' Sheehan demanded. 'Who the s*** do they think attacked the Cole, f****** Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Does al-Qa'eda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?'"

Apparently so. The attack, on the Cole, which killed 17 US sailors, was deemed by Clinton's Defence Secretary Bill Cohen as "not sufficiently provocative" to warrant a response. You'll have to do better than that, Osama! So he did. And now the same people who claim Bush had no right to be "pre-emptive" about Iraq insist he should have been about September 11.

As for Clarke's beef with Bush, that's simple. For eight years, he had pottered away on the terrorism brief undisturbed. The new President took it away from him and adopted the strategy outlined by Condoleezza Rice in that Detroit radio interview, months before the self-regarding Mr Clarke claims he brought her up to speed on who bin Laden was: "We really need a stronger policy of holding the states accountable that support him," Dr Rice told WJR. "Terrorists who are just operating out there without basis and without state support are a lot less dangerous than ones that find safe haven, as bin Laden does sometimes in places like Afghanistan or Sudan."

Just so. In the 1990s when al-Qa'eda blew up American targets abroad, the FBI would fly in and work it as a "crime scene" - like a liquor-store hold-up in Cleveland. It doesn't address the problem. Sure, there are millions of disaffected young Muslim men, but, if they get the urge to blow up infidels, they need training and organisation. Somehow all those British Taliban knew that if you wanted a quick course in jihad studies Afghanistan was the place to go. Bush got it right: go to where the terrorists are, overthrow their sponsoring regimes, destroy their camps, kill their leaders.

Instead, all the Islamists who went to Afghanistan in the 1990s graduated from Camp Osama and were dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and North America, where they lurk to this day. That's the Clarke-Clinton legacy. And, if it were mine, I wouldn't be going around boasting about it.

[Cosmo]

And in fact, I really do think that there is a racist/sexist element in Clarke's assessment of Condi.

[snooker]

That pretty well nails it shut.

I smell smoke.

[deport]

Instead, all the Islamists who went to Afghanistan in the 1990s graduated from Camp Osama and were dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and North America, where they lurk to this day. That's the Clarke-Clinton legacy. And, if it were mine, I wouldn't be going around boasting about it.

---

Speculation about what may have been had the election of 1992 turned out differently is only speculation but it's interesting. Had President Bush won relection in 1992 that means Quayle most likely would have been the nominee in 1996. Would Quayle have won? Who knows...

But the question of intrigue is would the approach to protecting against terrorism been any different up to and until the event of Sept. 11, 2001 with another President in place? My opinion is I doubt it would have changed drastically..... I think it took the event to shake the changes that are being implemented.

[stockpixx]

Please put me on this ping list... I love this guy!!!
Thanks

[Doc On The Bay]

Far from getting a "Pulitzer," Mr Steyn is likely to be "Shunned" by the "Mainstream Media."

Mr Steyn exhibits the "Uncomfortable Tendency" of "Reporting the Factual Truth;"--an "aberration" which is "Totally Unacceptible To" the "Media!!"

In the "Worldview of 'The Left,'" ANY "Dissent From" the "Party Line" is ANATHEMA.

Mark Steyn's columns are "Blasphemous!"

Do we Begin to see a resemblance between "The Left" & "An Orthodox Religion??"

HHMMNNN!

Doc

[Endeavor]

ping

[Brian Allen]

<< .... [Did] al-Qa'eda have to attack the Pentagon to get [The KKKlintonistas'] attention?'"

[Absolutely] so. The attack on the Cole, which killed 17 US sailors, was deemed by [KKKli'ton's 'defence secretary,'] Bill Cohen, as "not sufficiently provocative" to warrant a response. You'll have to do better than that, Osama!

So he did ..... >>

Gotta give every "Stubbornly-stupid and idiotically-ignorant" prize to them "DemocRATS"

Two hundred years into the existence of the vast criminal enterprises they and their Goebbels', mis-and-disinformation and enforcement wings [Comprised of those also known as 'the press', 'the media', 'the NEA' and 'the Courts'] call their 'political party' and their 'policies' of 'containment' are still inciting, encouraging, enabling and facilitating our nation's every enemy and are escalating only the size and frequency of attacks upon us from every on-Earth manifestation of evil and from every imaginable direction.

And the size of their's and their every-bit-as-malevovent military-industrial-complex cronies corrupt accounts.

Thanks for the Ping, Pokes.

Blessings -- B A

[arasina]

Leave it to Mark Steyn to write the most insightful article about Richard Clarke!

By the way, on tonight's FNC "News Watch" program Jane Whatsherface said that the Bush administration has had a copy of Clarke's book since NOVEMBER! She went on, of course, to criticize them for not handling his testimony more effectively. This is the first I've heard this? Anyone know the veracity of her statement?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Don’t kid yourself, Mark Steyn might wish this was true, but Clarke (and more generally the fact that critics and skeptics are getting much increased media exposure) is a *big* problem.

Polling consistently shows that National Security is this Administration's electoral trump card, and events that might dilute confidence in the Administration's record – irrespective of whether readers here think they "objectively" ought to - are significant electoral problems; this was the week the Administration was going to be "defining" voters views of Kerry's on these issues, instead it's been a week of damage control efforts.

[Imal]

Richard Clarke has done yeoman's duty in opening up terrorism as a top campaign issue, which is something the Democrats desperately wish to avoid and have said so repeatedly in public.

From now on, terrorism is a legitimate issue for Bush to discuss, because Clarke threw down the gauntlet and must be answered. No one can expect the Bush administration to remain silent in the face of such brazen slander, not even the Democrats.

It leaves me to wonder who Richard Clarke is really working for, and why.

[WarrenC]

Thanks Pokey. I was really looking forward to reading Steyn on the subject of Richard Clarke. He didn't disappoint.

[js1138]

From now on, terrorism is a legitimate issue for Bush to discuss, because Clarke threw down the gauntlet and must be answered.

Folks are having a hard time figuring out what the dems are really gettin at here. It's really very simple.

The Bush doctrine is to go after governments that support or condone terrorism. This was made explicit in October 2000 by Condi Rice in her radio interview. This is also what Bush means by treating the problem as a war rather than an law enforcement problem.

The republicans will stand or fall on this distinction. It is up to the voters.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

that was Ann Coulter.

Indeed.

[PhilDragoo]

Bill Clinton focused like a laser on crafting a brilliant plan to destroy al-Qa'eda eighty civilians at Waco, Bill Gates, Newt Gingrich, Elian Gonzales, Juanita Broaddrick, Ken Starr, Notra Trulock, John O'Neill, in short, everyone except Osama bin Laden.

Richard A. Clarke's contribution to the WOT was bombing the aspirin factory.

At least we know what the A stands for.

[Imal]

The election is a very long way off.

Clarke's time in the spotlight will be ending soon enough, but the topic of who did what against terrorism will remain, and the facts overwhelmingly support Bush and irrevocably condemn Clinton.

The Democrats' Pandora's Box has been opened.

With all the hype surrounding Clarke and his unprecedented publicity, no Democrat can reasonably claim that Bush would be "distasteful" to respond, and respond he will with verifiable facts all the way up to Election Day.

This also opens the door wide to a detailed accounting of what Clinton did or did not do to prevent 9-11. It may even lead to new public examination of the recession Bush inherited when he took office, as well as the dubious stable of Clinton holdovers, who now appear to be little more than whipping-boys in waiting.

The net result of all this hubbub is a major victory for the Bush campaign, turning public interest toward terrorism. With such a foothold -- and others to come -- the Bush campaign can keep terrorism in the public eye all the way to the finish line.

To be sure, those who hate Bush will believe anything negative they hear, but they will never vote for him anyway. This is a play for the undecided voters, and there are more than enough of those.

But, despite pervasive media mendacity, those who are not sure will see lies from the left and facts from the right, and that will not work to Kerry's favor.

Frankly, it's a little too pat for my palate, but that's politics.

[Eva]

I love this guy. Someone should put him on tv, or radio.

[ladyinred]

You'll have to do better than that, Osama! So he did. And now the same people who claim Bush had no right to be "pre-emptive" about Iraq insist he should have been about September 11.

Great line. This article pretty much says it all!

[bootyist-monk]

See the poll in Newsweak. So far, Dubya and Co. have effectively dealt with Clarke's lies. As long as the WOT remains the issue-one, Bush wins by a landslide. Notice how quickly Cash-in Kerry went back to the "let me give you a job" strategy.

[knighthawk]

Ping