Hey Bush supporters!
Please tell me about how Richard Clarke is delusional or lying.
I’m serious. Because he’s made some pretty disturbing allegations, and I have no reason not to believe him. His book is pretty good, actually. I mean it’s a real page-turner. Blix’s book was kind of boring.
Here’s the thing. I don’t want to be a “Bush-hater” as nnnuts says. Really. I know just by reading the book I’ve painted myself as a Bush-hater, but I really and honestly want to know why I shouldn’t take what he wrote seriously. (And yes, I resent the implication that investigation is by itself a sign of prejudice, but that’s a rant for another day.)
So, is he lying? Is he deluded? Is he in reality not the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism but instead an escaped mental patient? Whether he’s angry at the administration, is he making stuff up?
What’s the deal with Clarke? I mean, if any of what he says is true, Bush would be on trial for treason, not the front-runner in the upcoming election. Yet people are still thumbs-up on Bush and I’m not hearing any rebuttal on what Clarke claims. That doesn’t make sense.
Well, I read the Clarke book
Well, I read the Clarke book — I trust him. I think his arguments are extremely valid.
I’ve been a pretty hard-core passivist most of my adult life. But Clarke’s book, and many things I’ve read and experienced over the past 3 years, have changed that a bit. The book was a real history lesson (history I lived through, experienced, but not through his point of view, natch) — and I appreciated it.
I think the administration was (deeply unfortunately) successful in maligning Clarke — in making him out to be a spotlight-loving disgruntled employee. I don’t think this could be further from the truth.
What is absolutely clear to me from reading his book, is that the Bush Admin came into office with a deep and complete disdain for all things Clinton — with a security team stuck in a Cold War mentality — and decided to re-write the book — to begin fresh. In the process they ignored the lessons of the previous 20 years, acted like the world would wait for them to catch up, and put us all at tremendous risk. As a New Yorker, I take this personally.
I want to say more, but I have spent so much energy being angry. What I really wanted to make clear is that I trust Richard Clarke.
love.
Well, I am only familiar
Well, I am only familiar with what the headlines said was in this book, not having read it myself. But, I do know that Bush, Sr. fired him for being anti-semitic and Bush, Jr. demoted him. Doesn’t make for too friendly relations, does it? When W demoted him he resigned, writing in his resignation letter effusive praise for the job the Bush administration was doing in their anti-terrorism campaign. Bush released that letter after Clarke’s book came out and that helped to refute Clarke’s book.
Apparently, most of this book can neither be verified or refuted, so it appears to be just his word as a disgruntled ex-employee against the denials of everyone else involved. Spurned lover or divorce court stuff. That is why the book fell off the radar screen so quickly after it was released. Even the press, which is NOT notably pro-Bush, realized it had no legs. Only the dedicated anti-Bush people gave it much credibility.
It probably made him a lot of money, though.
Dad
Well, who am I to argue with
Well, who am I to argue with Dad?
Oh yeah: I’m someone who *has* read the book, as well as other biographical material. Bush Sr. didn’t fire him — that’s really out of left field. And anti-Semitic? Not in any of the lit. Not even the PowerLine Blog (who calls him a fraud mainly on the basis of his friendship with Rand Beers) mentions that.
He gradually moved up in the ranks of the State & Defense departments from 1973 — working for Reagan as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence, and for Bush Sr. as Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs.
You know, since you too read the book, that Clarke was not demoted by Bush Jr: he was so frustrated about being ignored, that he asked for the Cyber Security job. When his major report there was finished, he resigned.
Do a Google search, read several sources, try to triangulate to get to the best truth you can — it’s never as simple as Karen Hughes tells you it is.
OK, that sounds like a vote
OK, that sounds like a vote for “liar” then?
Would this also serve to explain some of the “only a Bush-hater would bother reading the book in the first place” attitude around?
You can argue with Dad all
You can argue with Dad all you like. You’re way cuter than him.
Sorry, Dad. You lose.
Clarke wanted to be Dir of
Clarke wanted to be Dir of Homeland Security, which is essentially what his job was until after 9/11. He was passed over for that job and, yes, demoted to Dir. of Cyber Crime.
James Baker, the first President Bush’s secretary of state, fired Clarke from his position as director of the State Department’s politico-military bureau. (Bush’s NSC director, Brent Scowcroft, did hire him almost instantly.) Baker fired Clarke for being too close to Israel, accusing him of condoning Israel’s illicit transfer of American air-defense technology to China. That’s absolutely the opposite of what I said he was fired for. Fired, none-the-less. I shoulda checked, but I used to have a reliable memory. (I was still alive back in those days, but that wasn’t really a headline story.)
Clarke claims to be an Independent, registered as a Republican, but his FEC filings show that for the last decade he has maxed out his campaign donation limit in every election to Democrats exclusively. Prior to that he made no campaign donations. And his best friend is the Kerry campaign’s coordinator for national security issues, Rand Beers. Smells bad.
Bottom line: If you’re a liberal, Clarke’s a heroic truthteller. If you’re a conservative, he’s a bitter Bush hater. Is anyone going to change their mind at this point?
But I’m willing to discuss ANYTHING with someone Steve says is better-looking than I am.
Dad
OK yeah, I thought that the
OK yeah, I thought that the “antisemitism” charge sounded just a little too far off of what I read. Thanks for clarifying.
There’s a timeline discrepancy between your telling and Clarke’s and sometime maybe I’ll dig a little deeper. You say he was demoted to Dir. of Cyber Crime and he says he chose that position, having given up trying to convince Bush, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowicz that al-Qa’eda was a significant threat that should be dealt with. Yeah, “demoted” and “resigned” are often a matter of perspective or nicety around the “it’s the end of your time here” discussion that we’ve all seen in workplaces, but timeline: he says that decision was made months before 9/11 and that he was lined up to start the Cyber job on October 1st. Which, if I remember correctly, was months before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Rand Beers may be the Kerry campaign’s coordinator for national security issues now, but didn’t Bush choose him to be Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism on the NSC Staff, essentially replacing Clarke’s replacement? That smells more like you have the causal relationship backwards.
I know some bleeding heart commie pinko liberals that are virulent Bush supporters because they’re convinced that invading Iraq was the best way to respond to 9/11. I still wouldn’t call them Republicans even though they support Bush. It likewise seems entirely plausible that folks with a high level of frustration with Bush’s (mis)handling of what they see as an issue vital to the very survival of the nation might hold their noses and back a candidate that wants higher taxes and socialized medicine – if it means surviving to see the tax bill.
Clarke claims to have had an excellent relationship with Clinton and seems to regard him highly. In his book, he never really mentions any of the issues that we traditionally refer to as left or right wing. Just the fight against terrorism. Clarke says Clinton took terrorism seriously and went after al Qa’eda, and that Bush refused to listen to anything about al Qa’eda. So again, it seems entirely possible that he could still honestly consider himself independent, even to identify most strongly with traditionally republican values, and still support a candidate likely to take terrorism seriously.
Bottom line, I’d rather not have my opinion of Clarke’s allegations colored by my political prejudices. I’m extra-wary of Clarke’s story precisely because some elements sound almost like I would have guessed: his description of Bush as intelligent but intellectually lazy resonates with my impression of the President. Look, I’m intellectually lazy. I don’t want to read a book just to reinforce my own preconceived notions. I can stay stupid without bothering to read. One of the challenges is always to consider the source.
So yes, I’m a bitter Bush hater. Do I think my mind can’t be changed? I’m skeptical, but I hope that I’m open-minded enough that if I were actually wrong I’d admit it and change my mind. Clarke has shown me a side of Clinton that I didn’t believe existed, and oh yes, I’ve been a bitter Clinton hater for a long time.
The question really comes down to this: is it just a matter of opinion? Is it just that I disagree with his domestic policies? Or do I have real reason to fear for my life, safety, security and that of the people I love because Bush is President?
Whether to believe Clarke takes on greater implications that partisan politics. It’s important to know if he’s telling the truth, because I would like to survive the next four years, and I’d like you and to be around, too.
Well, I thought Beers WAS
Well, I thought Beers WAS Clarke’s replacement. He, too, “resigned” after about a month. Dunno, and don’t care enough to look it up.
Clarke says Bush wasn’t interested enough in al Qaeda and Rice says Clarke was ONLY interested in al Qaeda. She says that Bush has a broader view on terror than Clarke had.
I think it is interesting that both Bush and Clarke praised each other effusively in their resignation and resignation acceptance letters.
Sorry. It still sounds like campaign mud-slinging to me. And it also seems to me that, since this is the only place where the topic appears to live, that Bush has managed to deflect it successfully. We’ll never know the truth.
Dad
Yeah, I know Beers resigned
Yeah, I know Beers resigned quickly. I refrained from repeating Clarke’s characterization of that post as a revolving door. But I managed to sneak it in this time. My limited experience with management is that if you have several people going through a job in a year that there is likely a problem at the top rather than the bottom. But that’s just guessing.
In any case, Clarke was done with his post in October of 2001, and Beers’ resume lists “2002−2003.” If indeed he was only there for a month, then hopefully someone was there for the more than a year gap in between them. But I don’t know.
Clarke says that Bush wasn’t interested in al Qa’eda at all. He says that in the entire time leading up to 9/11 he was not allowed to brief Bush on terrorism. If that’s true, I’d probably have quit too. And if it’s true, then Bush deliberately ignored the biggest threat to National Security the US has seen since Japan, a threat that the previous administration took action to protect us from.
Call me silly, but this seems relevant. If Clarke is lying, that’s very bad. If Clarke is telling the truth, then he damn well should be slinging the mud he’s got. The campaign should “stick to the issues,” right? One can only hope that the safety of 260 million Americans and the memory of three thousand is an important enough issue.
I’m not sure why praise in resignation and resignation acceptance letters means anything at all. “I’ve really enjoyed working at this great company! (and you better give me a good referral you sonofa…)” “It was great having you on the team! and it’ll be even better having you go somewhere else so I’d better make sure you look good to the competition)” Doesn’t that happen all the time?