3/30/2004
I’ve got to say that the kerfuffle started by Richard Clark just two short weeks ago has me flip-flopping like a Kerry wannabee. There are just so many factors to consider, and an honest look at the issues should give any honest person significant pause.
On the one hand, the timing of Clarke’s book, his year of silence, and the ever-changing landscape of his story bring to mind the term “political hack” [One who undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward; a hireling]. On the other hand, the guy did serve in no less than four different administrations [starting with Reagan] and likely has more experience in regards to this issue than nearly any other person in D.C.
Though I do believe Clarke has some ego issues, you have to take at least some of what he says seriously. Upon examination of his public testimony, there are quite a few points of agreement that I have with Clarke. For example:
For example:
- First, Clarke agrees with the Bush Administration that, by the time President Bush took office, it was already too late to avert 9/11. Asked during his public testimony if, for example, the Bush Administration had implemented every one of Clarke’s recommendations on January 26, 9/11 could have been averted, Clarke’s reply was an unambiguous, unhesitant “NO!”
- Clarke pointed out that, over the past twenty years, Washington politicians have crippled our intelligence services. Literally, Clarke told the commission that:
…our HUMINT program, our spy capability, had been eviscerated in the mid-1980s and early-1990s, and there was no such capability either to know that al-Qaeda existed, let alone to destroy it. And there’s something else that I think we have to understand about the CIA’s covert action capabilities. For many years they were roundly criticized by the Congress and the media for various covert actions that they carried out at the request of people like me in the White House - not me, but people like me. And many CIA senor managers were dragged up into this room and others and berated for failed covert action activities. And they became great political footballs. -
Clark agrees with critics that Clinton’s policy of making the FBI the lead agency in dealing with the growing international terror threat was the wrong thing to do. Asked to detail the failures that led to 9/11, Clarke said that:
…the fact that we didn’t have intelligence that we could point to that said [an attack] would take place in the United States wasn’t significant in my view because, frankly, sir - I know how this is going to sound, but I have to say it - I didn’t think the FBI would know whether or not there was anything going on in the United States by al-Qaeda.
- Clarke agrees that preemption is the key to success in the War on Terror and underscored the challenges of selling some of the radical actions that he had proposed to Clinton in 1998 to better prepare the US for possible future terrorist attacks:
The problem is that when you make that recommendation before they happen, when you recommend an air defense system for Washington before there’s been a 9/11, people tend to think you’re nuts. - Lastly, Clarke supports the idea of taking military action even when the intelligence is uncertain, if the circumstances warrant. The attack on the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant under Clinton - made on the advice of Clarke - was one such instance. Yet the intelligence leading up to this attack was far less extensive than what we had on Iraq. I certainly agree with Clinton and Clarke that factories often have dual-use capabilities; aspirin one minute, chemical agents the next. As a matter of fact, Iraq has several such factories.
So, with all these points of agreement, why is there so much disagreement? It’s the money stupid! If you want to sell books these days, you’ve got to blame someone and because Bush is the current President, he gets to be the prime target of the book.
And it’s working! In some areas of the country, Clarke’s book is flying off of the shelves. Will it ultimately hurt the President? That is uncertain, as [url=http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=11167]one recent poll shows[/url].
And Republican challenges to Clarke’s testimony may help the President even more in coming months. Right now in Washington, we seem to have what amounts to a game of political “chicken” going on. First Clarke goes before the public to try and subtly point the finger at President Bush. Then Senator Bill Frist calls for the declassification of Clarke’s 2002 closed-door testimony on the grounds that his testimony under oath is contradictory to his 2002 testimony. Then Clarke, on [url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4608698/]Meet The Press[/url], calls for a wider declassification of memos and proposals sent by Clarke to Rice in 2001. Then Dr. Rice calls for an even wider declassification of documents, a call which is supported by many other Republicans, including myself.
Perhaps what we should do is declassify everything, including Clinton’s briefings on the growing terrorism problem. Lets look at what Clinton proposed in the four years after Osama bin Laden was identified as the head of Al Qaeda.
We know for sure that the changes Clarke had recommended to the Bush Administration in January of 2001 had been proposed three years earlier to President Clinton in 1998. President Clinton ignored Clarke’s recommendations for three years while the Bush Administration was able to review Clarke’s recommendations and go even beyond what he proposed to implement their new policy in just eight months.
I think these documents could be highly revealing, though, of course, if Republicans call for such a wide declassification of documents, Democrats will accuse Republicans of engaging in a witch hunt. Which, of course, is exactly what Democrats are seeking in the 9/11 Commission.
Political Chicken anyone?
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
3 Comments
Man is physically as well as metaphysically a thing of shreds and patches, borrowed unequally from good and bad ancestors, and a misfit from the start. by [url=http://www.free-casino-games-000.com” title=”casino online]casino online[/url]
Comment by free casino games — 12/12/2004 @ 1:22 pm