[jwalsh07]

Relentless and incredibly inept.

[FairOpinion]

Clarke clearly views Bush the enemy, not Bin Laden.

A pathetic Dem shill.

[Wilhelm Tell]

He fails to mention that President Clinton's three "findings" on bin Laden, which would have allowed the U.S. to take action against him, were haggled over and lawyered to death.

This is the result of the naive liberal view that terrorism is a traditional crime problem and not an act of war. This allows the traditional liberal knee-jerk reaction to kick in -- a way must be found to exonerate or at least "understand" the criminal (or terrorist), who is merely "misguided" because America is --racist-sexist-homophobic-imperialist-is too wealthy-has too much poverty-has too many guns-has too much personal freedom-has too many SUVs-is "insensitive"-is ruining the environment-- from there it is a short step from blaming the victim to disarming the victim.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

I had forgotten about the evacuation of the bin Laden clan from the US after 9/11. Just one of those things that slipped through the cracks. Wonder what the whole story is there?

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks so much for posting this! I've just finished Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden", and found it endlessly fascinating when juxtaposed against the recent Clarke revelations. This article underscores that while Clarke has the attention of the media because of his book and his efforts to shill for the Dims (x42 especially), Miniter has the facts. This is one of the most eviscerating attacks against Clarke yet.

[q_an_a]

without the web, most of us would be in the dark about the slimy ways of Clarke and Klinton.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Reading between the lines of this review by Miniter, I now think I understand Richard Clarke and his motivation.

When he started writing this book, he probably started it off as an honest and frustrated accounting of his decades in public service and the fight on terror. As he got into the process, perhaps as he started seeking a publisher, he realized: if I tell what I truly believe, everyone will hate me and I'll come across as a self-serving "outsider" in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. I have to choose sides if this book is going to be a success... Who controls the mainstream media? Who will give me the best buzz? Who will get those mindless American consumers to buy this book? How do I get the most "bang" for my views? Do I want to make my public confession on "60 Minutes" or "Fox & Friends"?

With this in mind, Clarke made his choice: whitewash the years of neglect by Clinton. Spin the events (not lie, just change the emphasis and "tenor") to excuse the feckless policies -- as a matter of fact, pick up the old mantra (this will play well in the media) that Clinton couldn't carry out Clarke's bold counter-terrorism because of those Republican scandal mongers. This won't sit well with the Bushies and the right-wing media, but you can count on the Clintonoids and that 90% of the mainstream media to do everything in their power to defend, extend and promote this "revisionist history".

Clarke probably did feel that Bush's focus on Iraq was mistaken and used that excuse for slanting his story (which I guess he started before the Iraq war began)... When the 9-11 Commission was scheduled, it became a very convenient publishing target date.

Like most career bureaucrats, Clarke probably feels the politicians are beneath him and stupid for not lapping up their policy prescriptions without question -- and I'm sure he has always sided with the Democrats for their "world view".

This is an opportunist of the first order -- and he's making $ millions as a result of this calculation. While Condi will expose his distortions, I'm sure it will be difficult to expose these as outright "Lies" because the mainstream media won't allow that to happen.

[maica]

If you only read one FR article today, this is the one to read.

****

BTW, Bob Kerrey on Fox and Friends, said that the committee has a list of questions from "the families" that have to be answered. I bet that none of them are the questions raised by Miniter, here.

The commissioners are going to use the fact that the Bush Administration was trying to get Congress to authorize more money for the missile defense program as "evidence" that they were not focused on the threat from terrorists.

[cyncooper]

Mr. Clarke misstates a range of checkable facts. The 1993 U.S. death toll in Somalia was 18, not 17. He writes that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed became al Qaeda's "chief operational leader" in 1995; in fact, he took over in November 2001. He writes (correctly) that Abdul Yasim, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, fled to Iraq but adds the whopper that "he was incarcerated by Saddam Hussein's regime." An ABC News crew found Mr. Yasim working a government job in Iraq in 1997, and documents captured in 2003 revealed that the bomber had been on Saddam's payroll for years.

Breathtaking. Polishing up the legacy of Clinton AND Saddam?

[cyncooper]

Howlin, I have never asked you to utilize your ping list before, but I think there are many freepers who cite the Miniter book and would be greatly interested in his column about his thoughts on Clarke.

Could you, please, send out the word?

[Gritty]

Why did Clarke decide to blame the Bush Administration and lie throughout?

Simple. Follow the money trail.

Millions for his book.

Plus, a cushy and well-paying job in some Saudi-related think tank or "consultant" role. This is yet to come, but I would bet 10-1 it happens within the year. Bank on it. As it is, he now has a cushy teaching job in Liberal academia and the accolades of an adoring Media in addition to paid gigs on CNN, rather than the "Gary Aldrich Treatment" of abuse and obscurity.

Don't think for a moment the clintons and their allies don't still know how to take care of their friends and punish their enemies.

Clarke is just another in a long line of clinton whores.

[firebrand]

voila

[kcvl]

the FBI, under Mr. Clinton, paid an informant who turned out to be a double agent working on behalf of al Qaeda.

In 1998, the Clinton administration alerted Pakistan to our imminent missile strikes in Afghanistan

[InterceptPoint]

South of Baghdad, satellite photos pinpointed a Boeing 707 parked at a camp where terrorists learned to take over planes. When U.S. forces captured the camp, its commander confirmed that al Qaeda had trained there as early as 1997. Mr. Clarke does not take up any of this.

Salmon Pak.

Has anyone seen any factual data that would either prove or disprove that some of the 911 terrorists trained at Salmon Pak? It would seem that we should know the answer to that very key question by now.

[Willing To Listen]

Neverdem,

I don't know if you had an opportunity to see Meet The Press on Sunday when Tim Russert asked Richard Clarke what he thought were the goals of Al Qaeda. Clarke immediately went into briefing mode and basically said the following:

1. Al Qaeda is a world wide network of terrorist cells.

2. Al Qaeda wants to kill as many Americans as they can.

3. Al Qaeda is looking to establish radical Islamic States.

My wish is that Tim Russert would have asked Richard Clarke the following question:

How can you state that Iraq is a diversion when:


A. Appeasement and concern about creating more hatred against the U.S. was there before any reaction on our part and the argument that we should waver from our mission is just a “straw man” ----- we are at war. Al Qaeda is relentless and they are not going away.

B. They have no desire to negotiate. Al Qaeda declared war on us and have delivered not one, but many provocations against us and will continue to do so.


C. In this war against Al Qaeda we need multiple bases of operations and Iraq happens to be strategically positioned right in the middle of the Al Qaeda breeding / recruitment grounds.

D. We initially went into Afghanistan and didn't divert to Iraq, but merely opened multiple fronts. We don't have the luxury of time to fight this war in a serial fashion.

E. Have you noticed that Colonel Muammar Qaddafi of Libya just folded his tent without our ever firing a shot? The "diversion of Iraq" spoke volumes to him and isn't it interesting that North Korea all of a sudden decided to start discussions about their nuclear weapons, when before our involvement in Iraq they were saber rattling every other day.

F. Al Qaeda is not just the person Usama Bin Laden or a single location like Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is pervasive.

Now Mr. Clarke, based on the above, would you still consider Iraq a diversion?

[rwfromkansas]

bump

[Wolfstar]

One momentous Bush-era episode on which Mr. Clarke can shed some light is his decision to approve the flights of the bin Laden clan out of the U.S. in the days after 9/11, when all other flights were grounded.

Can someone explain the significance of this to me? I pay zero attention to Leftist/Dem/fringe-Right conspriacy theories, so haven't got a clue what the point of this is supposed to be. On 9/11/01, itself, other than military, Coast Guard, and possibly police aircraft, ALL flights were cancelled. However, in the "days after," I know it isn't true that ALL flights were grounded. In addition to military, Coast Guard, police, fire and rescue, and some government flights, a few civilian flights were permitted to move some VIP's when necessary — for example, ambassasors, high-profile foreign nationals, and so on. So, if it is true that bin Laden relatives were moved out of the country, why is this "momentous"?

[Eva]

I hate it when these good WSJ articles are posted at night because they never get the attention that they deserve. If this doesn't get some attention, I will repost it.

[mewzilla]

So has the 9-11 Commission called Miniter to get to the bottom of the discrepancies in Clarke's testimony? That is why Dr. Rice is being dragged back before the commission, isn't it?

[marblehead17]

Good article