The Richard Clarke effect

At the end of the day, Americans will have to decide who they think will protect them better

Published on March 29, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

At the end of the day the American people are going to have to make up their own minds with regards to George W. Bush. They will either conclude that 9/11 was unavoidable and the policy of going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and then taking out Saddam in Iraq was a good thing or it wasn't a good thing.

Richard Clarke, who has been testifying before congress, decided that Bush and his team didn't do enough before 9/11. Whether you find him credible or not probably depends on whether you believe he has an axe to grind or not. I personally believe he does. In 2002 he gave a glowing review of how aggressive the Bush team was pre-9/11 and savaged the Clinton admistration's feckless policy. And yet, after not receiving a promotion into the DoHS, he resigned and has changed his mind that Bush's team did enough. The question is, when did he lie? Is he lying now? Or was he lying in 2002?

One thing is clear: Clarke believes going into Iraq was a distraction. He believes it has taken vital resources and attention from Afghanistan. Before you decide whether you agree with that assessment or not, there is still the simple issue: He has changed his view of how Bush's team was dealing with terrorism before 9/11 based on policy decisions made after 9/11. That's intellectually dishonest at best.

Now, assuming you agree with him, that dealing with Iraq took vital resources away from exterminating Al Qaeda, doesn't the same charge go for Clinton even more? Could it not be argued that the whole Kosovo war was a distraction from Al Qaeda? Couldn't Clinton, at the very least, inserted some special forces to take out Bin Laden? Post-9/11 Bin Laden is hiding in caves. During the Clinton years, he was living in public.

I think most Americans could be convinced that the Bush team didn't take Al Qaeda seriously enough prior to 9/11. I think Bush would agree that they weren't treating terrorism as the priority it should probably have been given. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But for anyone to argue that Clinton did a good job with terrorism is just trying to sell you something.

But all that aside, the question Americans will ultimately have to decide on is who do they think would have done a better job? A President Gore? A President Kerry? Or President Bush? Would Gore have responded to 9/11 like Bush did? Would Clinton? Would Kerry? Be honest. Can you really see Clinton having put together a plan to overthrow Afghanistan? One must remember how much of a contribution Rumsfeld and Powell put into the Afghanistan campaign.

Somehow I suspect that had Kerry been President (or Gore or Clinton) that the Taliban would still be in power. Certainly Saddam would have been. And as someone who is glad that both are gone, I think it's pretty obvious which candidate I trust American foreign policy to more -- regardless of which version of Clarke's story I choose to believe.

Comments (Page 1)

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Mar 29, 2004

hey brad,,,why don't you read my article on this subject that i posted today,,,it will show you just how credible he is,,,and it can be done using words of conservatives and bush himself,,,here's a link to make it easy...

Link

jeblackstar

on Mar 29, 2004

With respect to your article Brad, the difference between Clinton's distraction and Bush's distraction, is that when Clinton went into Kosovo, there was insufficient evidence that Al Qaeda was a significant threat. Bush's war distraction occured after Al Qaeda had blown up the twin towers.

Cheers

Noocyte

on Mar 29, 2004

is really the security aspect the only interesting aspect of your Presidental election ?
In my opinion, as a Norwegian, the serious debt problems the Bush Admin. has introduced is as serious an issue as the "terror-threat". And the "not so tactful" foreign policy is another issue that the Bush Admin. is famous for...

Under Clinton most Europeans at least repected the US and it's Government, but nowadays most don't. I'd find that toublesome if I was in charge...
But then I'm not!

- Noocyte -

vincible

on Mar 29, 2004

A President Gore? A President Kerry? Or President Bush? Would Gore have responded to 9/11 like Bush did? Would Clinton? Would Kerry? Be honest. Can you really see Clinton having put together a plan to overthrow Afghanistan

I'm not sure why you think Gore, Clinton, or Kerry wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. Certainly, if you judged by their campaigns in 2000, Gore was more inclined to a muscular foreign policy than Bush was.

is really the security aspect the only interesting aspect of your Presidental election

Security happens to be in the news right now because of 9/11 hearings. There will be plenty of arguments about other things in coming months.

testing132

on Mar 29, 2004

I personally do not fault him for praising Bush in 2002 and now criticizing him in 2004. Remember 2002 was before the Iraq war. And I think the argument that he was working for Bush, and therefore his job was to praise the Bush administration, is perfectly valid. He was not speaking as a private citizen at that time. Of course, I would not excuse him if he lied, but I haven't seen anything he said then that appears to be a lie. Maybe he simply changed his mind about Bush's policies sometime during or after 2003. There's nothing untruthful about that.

messybuu

on Mar 29, 2004

Was Clarke's job to brown nose? If that wasn't his official job, since he shifted his opinion so drastically despite the fact that nothing changed (unless Bush went back in time), it sounds as though he says what he thinks will get him what he wants. Is that credibility?

Wahkonta Anathema

on Mar 30, 2004

I find Clarke the winner of the credibility poll on the matter. Condo Rice is cementing it now with her desire to not be made to speak truthfully in the investigation of it. The oath she refuses to take to testify - the one Clarke took willfully - is the same one of swearing to serve the people she took to hold office at leisure. The nonsense of no precendent is another sign of this Administration's arrogance of power.

The fact they condemn an apology to the victims' families made by Clarke, is yet another sign of the lack of credibility this President has with the American people. Neither Kerry nor Clinton would ever find such dis-regard of 'feelings' as acceptable. While simultaneously arguing "National Security' as a defense for not truthfully and openly testifying, Bush is allowing classified documents to leak about Clarke. We already know of the proclivity of selective national security in this President's treatment of Haliburton& friends, and his outing of CIA personnel in retaliation for not falsifying evidence to support the invasion of Iraq.

The Republicans are backing a loser on this, and more and more Americans are moving away from Bush in this 'vietnamization' of Iraq and Afghanistan that is now occuring. We are not making the profits on this falsified war, and so lack the motives of Bush, tending to believe an apology to victims is not a bad thing. Credibility? Ask yourself how credible Bush is in face of the emerging facts. This position will not strengthen with time for Republicans. Kerry is more of an alternative because of Clarke's testimony in public and Condoleeza Rice's arguments, on behalf of this President, against being held to the same standard.

Glad to see so many speak up on this sly mis-direction of comparison rather than open public accountability on the true issue by this President, named Bush.

Four more years? Yeah, right.

Draginol

on Mar 30, 2004

Jeb, Al Qaeda had already bombed the USS Cole. Had already bombed US embassies. Was involved in Somalia. Had already attacked the WTC?

What does it take to become a "significant" threat in your book?

Also, you are making the assumption that Bush hasn't vigorously gone after Al Qaeda post 9/11. The evidence seems pretty good to the contrary. The Taliban is gone. Osama, if he's alive, is living in caves. And the US hasn't been attacked by terrorists since. The evidence sure points to a pretty successful campaign against Al Qaeda in post 9/11.

What do you think the US should have done differently? The only way we coudl be more effective against Al Qaeda militarily is if we started sending troops into Pakistan. And that has nothing to do with whether we toppled Saddam or not.

Draginol

on Mar 30, 2004

Under Clinton most Europeans at least repected the US and it's Government, but nowadays most don't. I'd find that toublesome if I was in charge...

Most Americans care about as much what Europeans think about us as we care about how Bangladesh feels about us. Why should Americans care? We elect presidents based on what they do for us. Not how happy they make Europeans. I'm sure Roosevelt wasn't too popular in Europe for quite awhile too.

jeblackstar

on Mar 30, 2004

Jeb, Al Qaeda had already bombed the USS Cole. Had already bombed US embassies. Was involved in Somalia. Had already attacked the WTC?

When the Kosovo war began, the USS Cole had not been bombed. There were some embassy bombings, but there have been embassy bombings for years, I mean the Iranians bombed our embassy in the late 70s, should we have invaded them? The Somalia link was tenuous at best, Somalia was embroiled in it's own civil war, and we had troops there, and the WTC attackers had been sent to trial.

Since only two of your points are ones I recognize as valid, the embassies and the WTC I'll address those.

Timothy Mcvay bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building, we didn't wage a war against Right Wing Militiaists, you don't see Bush pushing that now, so, when a group of men snuck into a building and detonated a bomb, we decided to use a more civilized approach and actually try them for their crimes. There was insufficient evidence that there was a conspiracy led by a single nation, say Afghanistan or Iraq.

The Embassy bombings were also terrible, but since most evidence pointed to locals, working for Al Qaeda I'll grant, the US allowed, which is a diplomatic nicety, the local officials to prosecute and deal with the perpetrators.

Having said that, we also bombed several known Al Qaeda sites afterwards.

Cheers

messybuu

on Mar 30, 2004

Well, if Timothy McVey did indeed belong to a group that takes responsibility for the attacks, then Clinton and Bush should have done something to them, but if he acted alone, then that's different.

As for my opinion on the subject, I'd say that Clinton and Bush did what was reasonable concerning terrorism. After all, before 9/11, it wasn't that significant. To focus more attention on it would probably result in the same outrage that people feel for the war in Iraq in that it's jumping the gun and making a big deal only out of a possibility.

Aaron Brandt

on Mar 30, 2004

This reply is mainly in response to Wahkonta. I really don't know how credible Clarke is. It is beginning to be clear that Clarke didn't really change his story all that much between a few years ago and today and his book. His attitude and focus on certain aspects is what has changed. He seems bitter because he is very against the Iraq war. I don't know what most of his motivations are, but he seems to be telling a somewhat accurate side to the story.

Now today Condoleezza Rice has finally agreed to talk before the commission under oath publicly. The president and vice president both agreed to speak privately. Of course this is because of all the criticism they've been recieving for refusing to testify before the commission. I also want to point out that Clarke refused to testify before a committe investigating the Y2k computer situation citing the same privilege that the White House had been for Rice. I say the more we the commission can find out, the better.

The only reason I could see for "condemnation" of an apology made by Clarke, is that the apology would basically be an admission on the part of the administration of their guilt in 9/11, which I hope they are not actually guilty for.

I've been following the points down on the post written by Wahkonta and this is about where I start getting confused. How can you compare Iraq to Vietnam? Both involved US soldiers fighting against an enemy that was using guerilla tactics, but thats about where similarities end. The majority of Iraqis aren't supporting attacks on US troops, much of Vietnam wanted us out. We've lost close to 600 soldiers in Iraq, compared to many thousands in Vietnam. While I'm not trying to make these deaths sound unimportant, they are all tragedies, the casualties are nowhere near those of Vietnam. Vietnam kept getting worse for us, as many many citizens joined the Vietcong to replace those that died. Iraq is on the whole getting better. Where Vietnam was decimated by the years of fighting, Iraq has gotten significantly better than it was BEFORE the war(If you don't believe me the information is out there and I can link it). Afghanistan, while still facing many troubles, is even further from Vietnam that Iraq.

The paragraph then moves to something about Bush's credibility now because of "the emerging facts". I guess I don't know what these emerging facts are, or what they are even related to. If its about WMD's, then that is still very debatable (I don't know why the administration hasn't done more to debate it). If it's about refusing to testify, they are willing to testify now. If Wahkonta wants to reply with what facts were being referred to, I'd love to discuss it(not necessarily debate it since I'm not actually a fan of everything Bush has been doing).

Then Wahkonta moves on to say Kerry is a better alternative because Clarke came out and testified and Rice didn't. This makes no sense, these events don't have anything to do with Kerry. Why does this make Kerry a good alternative? Isn't there the possibility that Kerry would have handled the situation worse? Bringing him into this is pointless. Kerry has in fact tried to avoid getting into this mess by snowboarding and complaining about his secret service guy.

Now, lets do some agreeing. This administration has been doing many things to give misinformation to the public. I know that. I also think people are too quick not to believe anything that comes out of the White House. That's bad. There has always been a level of mistrust towards the presidents through the years, but I think this particular president is getting worse. I also believe that much of this is that the administration is doing a bad job backing themselves up, they instead attack anyone who says something against them.

Island Dog

on Mar 30, 2004

The Somalia link was tenuous at best, Somalia was embroiled in it's own civil war, and we had troops there, and the WTC attackers had been sent to trial.

It was well known that the fighters in Somalia were supported by osama. The WTC attackers were sent to jail, but the people who planned and kept planning more attacks were bascially ignored. Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem, the same as John Kerry would like to do. That is obviously the wrong choice.

Clinton had many opportunities to capture or kill bin laden and he chose not too. One of the reasons I heard recently from the 9/11 commission was that the Clinton administration was worried about what other countries would think. In other words, they were worried about what the french would say.

Draginol

on Mar 30, 2004

The problem with idealogues is that they eventually become of touch with normal people.

Regular people are not going to believe that Bush was LESS effective in dealing with terrorism than Clinton was.

Bush will take some knocks on this in the short term until common sense takes over.

It's kind of like the "No WMD" rantings. The people who were for the war previously are still for the war and the people who were against the war are still against it and using the "No WMD" as if they would somehow have been in favor of the war if they'd found stockpiles of mustard gas or something.

jeblackstar

on Mar 30, 2004

It was well known that the fighters in Somalia were supported by osama

It was? All the fighters in Somalia were supported by Osama? Prove it, and then I'll listen.

Regular people are not going to believe that Bush was LESS effective in dealing with terrorism than Clinton was.

I agree with this statement, but the thing is, Clinton wasn't the officer on watch when the boat sank, to use a nautical example. Who does the board of inquiry examine when a ship sinks? The capitain, for one, but also the officer of the watch.

Cheers

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!