Clarke deserves chutzpah award for al-Qaida claims

The Union Leader. ^ | March 28, 2004 | Charles Krauthammer

[MEG33]

Clarke may well be a speaker at the Democratic convention because of his attacks on Bush.His credibility as a security czar has been severely damaged.His self aggrandizing spin is almost laughable.

His anti Bush,Rice tirade leaves him wearing the mantle of a bitter,partisan hit man.

[VOA]

bump

[Just mythoughts]

Personally I believe that without CBS and The Commission, Clarke's book would be a dud.

[miltonim]

nice

[Right_in_Virginia]

Great summary of Clarke and his hate-driven lies.

[metesky]

Kraut ping.

[dennisw]

Stellar summary of how it really is and was with Richard Clarke

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Ping!

[InvisibleChurch]

clarke is another one of those poor schlubs who gets caught up in the liberal/media limelight... he's treated like a hero and then can't stay off the television; he thinks he's more important than he is... just like that weapons inspector from a few years ago, i forget his name... the left dispenses with these fellows in due course

[ReleaseTheHounds]

What should we have done during those lost years? Clarke answered: “Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. . . . That’s . . . the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.” It did not. And who was president? Clinton. Who was the Clinton administration’s top counterterrorism official? Clarke. He now says that no one followed his advice. Why did he not speak out then? And if the issue was as critical to the nation as he now tells us, why didn’t he resign in protest?

This is the essence of this article from my perspective... If Clarke was serious about wanting to warn the US about the threat of terrorism, al Qaeda, OBL and if he wanted to intercede in the gathering threat, and put this issue on the national agenda, why didn't he resign in 1999 or even 2000 and go public then? Why didn't he take up his book project and get it into the national debate for the 2000 election when he could have forced both parties to step-up and answer?

In this light, he did owe everyone an apology because HE COULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE AND HE CHOSE NOT TO.

Unfortunately, Richard Clarke is as feckless as his Clinton "superiors" -- and that's a very low standard indeeed.

[kellynla]

Great piece. I already posted it Friday here http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105576/posts but it definitely deserves another. Krauthammer is the best!

[alwaysconservative]

Excellent post! You said exactly what I was thinking, only you put it much more succinctly!

[maica]

Before I read this article, and your response, I wrote the words below, in another thread. Let us hope that the majority of voting Americans understand this.

&&&




"Why did ho not resign, or transfer away from BJC? Because he lived for his face time in the Oval Office. That's what Bush and Rice took away from him. "

[RonnG]

http://www2.merton.ox.ac.uk/images/mad-hatter.gif

[jwalsh07]

Dudue, don't you ever sleep? :-}

[metesky]

Sleep is for slackers.
;O)

[SamKeck]

The present Clarke-generated media stir brings to mind the darling of the media status once enjoyed by Monica Lewinski's first lawyer ... and now I can't even remember his name.

[lepton]

bookmark bump

[AFPhys]

K: Thank you for simply pointing out that this article had been posted before, instead of acting like a nitwit.

Sopwith: Thank you so much for posting this again. It clearly deserves great attention.