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 3)

Wahkonta Anathema

on Apr 02, 2004

Mr Brandt: touche! Very good reply and leaves me a bit dis-heveled. I was primarily anticipating Brad and his tactic of using one title to get at another issue, such as the comparison to Clinton here, rather than the actions of Bush directly. By diverting judgement on one he makes the reader react to another side issue rather than ever get to the point of accountability for Bush.

I am caught quite un-prepared and will respond properly when i get a moment. I thank you for the incisive work, puts me back on guard for I had grown lapse in my replies lately. I have just completed a three part on Rice and her testimony to come. Am a bit worn from the read and will get back to you as soon as I can. I'll be there, even if I catch you on another blog, as this one is getting a bit distant from the title. Brad does it again, re-directing us away from the issue at hand to comparisons of dollars and donuts, qua, Bush and Clinton.

jeblackstar

on Apr 02, 2004

There is clear links between Somalia and osama.

I asked for proof and you repeat the same statement.

Sure there were Al Qaeda fighters in Somalia, did they lead the fighting? Probably not, it was one warlord against another warlord, with Al Qaeda fighters, Somali fighters, American fighters, the French Foreign legion, and God knows who else.

Cheers

I'm still looking for a response to this post.

Cheers

jeblackstar

on Apr 02, 2004

To adress Brad's original post. Everyone was asleep at the wheel, it's true, and, as you've said, everyone should be blamed for that. For me, the critical issue isn't that Bush could have prevented 9/11, or even that there was an Iraqi war. The critical issue for me, insofar as we're talking about "war" and "terrorism", is the by now debunked assertion that Saddam helped stage 9/11, perpetuated by the White House, and the also debunked assertions of WMDs in Iraq. Sure intelligence was wrong, I don't dispute that, nor do I hold that against Bush, I just resent being told that I'm about to die because someone in Iraq might have WMDs, which, by the way, he didn't have the capability to have reach the United States. The urgency in my eyes was not there, so yes, dubya could have spent more time building up a more multi-national coalition, he could have spent more time constructing a real plan for post Saddam Iraq, he could have done a lot of things when, at the time, the most that was threatened was the Arab world. Sure we have allies there, but they could have taken care of the problem a long time ago if they really wanted to.

By the way, the above reasons aren't my most important reasons for voting against Bush, but they are some of them.

Cheers

nazgul

on Apr 02, 2004

Neo – CONNED !

Danny

on Apr 05, 2004

A bit late, but still here is:

Frogboy:
"Danny: Yes but you still have to make the case as to why Americans should consider European opinion when voting for a Presidential candidate."

I never said they should. What I meant was that even though both parties could care less about what they think of each other, they still have opinions about each other's public figures and/or events taking place elsewhere in the world. So basically you'll get americans saying Chirac said some pretty stupid stuff, just like you'll have europeans saying stuff about Bush; that's in addition to euro's saying stuff about Chirac & americans about Bush.
Point being that although people could care less about the opinions of foreigners - rightly so in most cases, I'd say - you can't expect people to shut up about stuff that does concern them one way or other - maybe even trying to influence the debate; I mean, one can always learn things from a discussion

Frogboy: "Blix, btw, WAS finding huge stockpiles of mustard gas and worse right up until they got kicked out in 1998. I assume you would have supported war in 1998? And if so, why not then in 2003? What changed?"

What changed? For one it looks like the stuff had been destroyed or removed since then. On the other hand I've never responded well to (perceived) arrogance; statements as those made by Powell in the UN did not help either since it was clear the 'proof' he was showing was not nearly as sure as his statements. Playing the WMD card as _the_ reason to go to war was a stupid move - at least in the way of interesting other people in the war.

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!