March 30, 2004
UNEXAMINED CLARKE
Shaun Carney in today’s Melbourne Age:
A sensational new book by America's former anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke suggests that the Bush White House allowed itself to be consumed by its obsession with Saddam at the expense of overseeing a co-ordinated global response to terrorism.
The Clarke story in Australia is mostly the story of Clarke’s book; few revelations of his contradictory paper trail have been reported. Here’s one example, from an interview previously noted by several bloggers: in March 2002, Richard Clarke told PBS:
On the day of Sept. 11, then the day or two following, we had a very open mind. CIA and FBI were asked, "See if it's Hezbollah. See if it's Hamas. Don't assume it's Al Qaeda. Don't just assume it's Al Qaeda." Frankly, there was absolutely not a shred of evidence that it was anybody else. The evidence that it was Al Qaeda began just to be massive within days after the attack.
Clarke’s story has changed; in his interview with 60 Minutes, “see if it's Hezbollah, see if it's Hamas” became “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.” And, as Time magazine pointed out, Clarke’s recollection then evolved to demands for: "Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaida, a memo on Iraq and the attacks."
Also from the PBS interview, this exchange:
Posted by Tim Blair at March 30, 2004 02:23 AMInterviewer: A lot of people looked at Sept. 11, and said "Massive intelligence failure. Haven't seen an intelligence failure like this since Pearl Harbor." What's your opinion on that allegation?
Clarke: I think it's a cheap shot.
Clarke's "cheap shot" comment is both right and wrong. The CIA was set up explicitly to avoid down-side surprises (getting hit by an enemy surprise attack, i.e. Pearl Harbor), so there's a case to be made that 9/11 was a huge intel failure. The problem is surprises do happen and their roots are often complex, as in this case. Clarke was presumably thinking -- correctly -- that all the main actors tasked with defeating AQ were working hard, but simply didn't succeed in preventing 9/11. In any case, this sole possible basis for his comment of "cheap shot" implies an understanding of the situation completely at odds with his characterization of Bush-era anti-AQ efforts, which might thus be fairly described as ..... a cheap shot.
The "coverage" of this whole thing illustrates the distress of the major media. In the hearing, Clarke was asked if all his wish-list items, adopted within a week of Bush's inauguration, would have had the "remotest chance" of preventing 9/11. Clarke: "No." How many readers of the mainstream press are even aware of this dispositive exchange, which eviscerates Clarke's vague "cheap shots" made in press venues?
But the capstone is the illogical "spectacular" presented by the following well-known facts, combined with Clarke's allegedly "explosive" charges: administration does little on Iraq pre-9/11, 9/11 happens, administration takes down Afghanistan regime, 18 months later takes down Iraq regime -- Clarke observes that administration was preoccupied with Iraq the whole time. I have yet to see a single instance of a major media outlet even noting, much less drawing implications from, the complete, irreconcilable contradiction between Clarke's "explosive charges" and recent history. However, last week the WaPo did have a lengthy, preposterous story about supposed contradictions between Rice and other administration officials, none of which held up under the least examination as either accurate or significant.
Clarke made a "joke" saying that Bush insisting on attacking Iraq after 9/11 was like FDR insisting on attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor. Interestingly, Clark got the first letter right: FDR insisted on attacking Morocco after Pearl Harbor. Bush, of course, rushed his attack on Iraq (after defeating Taliban) a mere 18 months after 9/11. FDR, on the other hand, wisely and patiently waited 11 months before invading Morocco.
Clarke is a historical moron also.
Posted by: Dean Douthat at March 30, 2004 at 03:47 AMTim:
Can you provide a web based source for the PBS interview. His quote is very damaging.
Posted by: Mahatma at March 30, 2004 at 04:07 AMMahatma:
It's the 2nd link in the post.
in March 2002, Richard Clarke told PBS:
Where's the contradiction?
In the first passage the CIA and FBI were asked "See if it's Hezbollah. See if it's Hamas. Don't assume it's Al Qaeda. Don't just assume it's Al Qaeda." Who by? We can't say.
In the second passage it is Clarke himself who was asked "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection." Who by? Well, Bush.
Whose to say it wasn't Dick who asked the CAI and FBI to 'keep an open mind'? Not anyone here.
Clarke is a little smarter than our boy Tim and his motley crue of bloggers - still, it was a good first up effort.
Next.
"Clarke is a little smarter ... '
I'll give you that he is more devious.
But he wasn't smart enough to get Bill Clinton to invade the Sudan and/or Afghanistan in the 7 years after the first WTC bombing.
I think it took W. less than 30 days to start the attack on Afghanistan and within 60 days Kabul had fallen.
Billmon is where it is at re Clark. Sift through the archives for some good analysis.
BTW, it's strange to see the White House all of a sudden obsessed with people telling the truth!
Posted by: bongoman at March 30, 2004 at 07:22 AMoops: Previous first up efforts.
Dismiss all of those, especially the InstaPundit links, then get back to us. Clarke's story is so full of holes it's amazing anyone takes him seriously.
Also check out kausfiles from March 28th and earlier.
Posted by: Matt Moore at March 30, 2004 at 08:10 AMIf that's the best Tim can do, no wonder he wants to jump straight to the conclusion without having to argue the facts!
So far, Tim hasn't come up with anything that's even worth reporting, let alone a serious challenge to Clarke's credibility.
Posted by: Mork at March 30, 2004 at 08:27 AMhttp://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=today
Former National Security Council counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke approved the evacuation of Osama bin Laden's relatives from the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
"It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following September 11," the Boston Herald notes in a March 26 editorial.
According to the Herald, "Clarke's role was revealed in an October 2003 Vanity Fair article. 'Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,' Clarke told Vanity Fair. 'My role was to say that it can't happen unless the FBI approves it. . . And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said "Fine, let it happen."'
"Vanity Fair uncovered that the FBI never fully investigated the passengers on those privately chartered flights (one of which flew out of Logan International Airport after scooping up a dozen or so bin Laden relatives.) But Clarke protested to Vanity Fair that policing the FBI was not in his job description."
I submit that Richard Clarke may have done more to harm US national security that any other person since Julius Rosenberg. When I first heard the name "Richard Clarke," I have to admit that I was thrilled to learn that Bush kept so many Clinton era appointments to maintain continuity. Fat chance that will ever happen again. I mean, what future president is not going to look at the Richard Clarkes of the previous administration and NOT see million dollar book bombs? Thanks for "no more continuity", Dick! How does it feel to sell out your countrymen for a book deal, Dick?
let alone a serious challenge to Clarke's credibility
Everything Clarke has said is a serious challenge to his credibility.
Cheap shots still hit just as hard.
Posted by: david at March 30, 2004 at 11:04 AMBuzz, I think Clarke was promised more than a book deal. I think he was promised Condi's job by John Kerry.
Posted by: Bruce at March 30, 2004 at 01:08 PM"Buzz, I think Clarke was promised more than a book deal. I think he was promised Condi's job by John Kerry."
Government salary is chump change; Clarke's next paycheck will come from the Saudis...
Does the war-blogging community have any criticisms of the Bush admins prosecution of the War on Terror?
The Clarke fiasco is only the latest in a series of revelations about the Bush way of war that raise serious questions about his competency and integrity. The Zarqawi fiasco is another which has not received due coverage.
Most of the Left supported the attack on Afghanistan and are therefore on-side in the legitimate War on Terror.
The same cannot be said of most of the Right.
Bush has spent $200 billion extra on defence since 911 and yet failed to capture or confirmed kill of Bin Laden or his number 2.
Iraq attack has been an evident failure in the effort to reduce the global or Iraq-national incidence of terrorism.
It has even been a failure on its own terms inso far as it has not reduced the incidence of rogue state WMD-proliferation.
I mean real rogue states, with fundie apparats and major para-military establishments, such as Pakis and Saudis. Not the pretend rogue state like Libya.
We should be grateful for the consequences of GW II, and US servicemen who prosecuted it, as it has resulted in the world being rid of Hussein and his dreadful political apparatus. But I wonder about Bush's intentions.
Is the War on Terror being prosecuted, ala McCarthy, as domestic politics by other means, in order to push through regressive-tax cuts on the back of militant foreign poliicy arousal amongst confused white Christians?
I mean Iraq and Iran are spelt similar, so maybe it does not matter which one we threaten with regime change.
Similarly, Osama and Sadam have got the same "am" syllable in their name, so maybe Sadam counts for Osama.
I do recall that Bush himself has proclaimed that the only war he will lay down his life for is the class war:
Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes.
One hopes that it is not in this sordid economic conflict that more than 500 young Americans have so far lost their lives. Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 30, 2004 at 02:56 PM
Let's play Guess Where Jack Spins, the fascinating game where we try to pick out the exact point where Jack Strocchi, Man Of Ineffable Casuistry, drops an idiotic conclusion and starts rambling about things unrelated to his arguement to make it look like he knows what he's talking about. Ready... go!
Most of the Left supported the attack on Afghanistan and are therefore on-side in the legitimate War on Terror.
The same cannot be said of most of the Right.
DING DING DING, we have a winner!
Posted by: Sortelli at March 30, 2004 at 04:03 PMAw, I can't leave it at that. I'm changing the game to FISK JACK STROCCHI
Does the war-blogging community have any criticisms of the Bush admins prosecution of the War on Terror?
Yes, but they close ranks when confronted with criticisms along the lines of "it's not a war", etc.
The Clarke fiasco is only the latest in a series of revelations about the Bush way of war that raise serious questions about his competency and integrity.
Yes, indeed! Oh. You meant BUSH, not CLARKE.
The Zarqawi fiasco is another which has not received due coverage.
If only the right wing wasn't trying to prevent war in Iraq we wouldn't have to worry about making the larger case for war!
Most of the Left supported the attack on Afghanistan and are therefore on-side in the legitimate War on Terror.
There were many liberal hawks on board then, and there are still liberals on board for the illegitmate-by-implication Iraq war. However, the majority (er, well, the TOTALALITY) of opposition to an attack on the Taliban came from the Chompsky-Zone of the Left.
The same cannot be said of most of the Right.
Sing along, everyone!
If your wacky faulty logic won't convince anyone, make stuff up! *clap clap*
If your wacky faulty logic won't convince anyone, make stuff up! *clap clap*
If no one listens to your views
you can blame it on Fox News
If your wacky faulty logic won't convince anyone, make stuff up! *clap clap*
Bush has spent $200 billion extra on defence since 911 and yet failed to capture or confirmed kill of Bin Laden or his number
2.
I guess money can't buy you happiness, love, or Bin Laden. If only he spent $400 billion! I mean listened to Richard Clarke! I mean, uh... not invaded Iraq!
Iraq attack has been an evident failure in the effort to reduce the global or Iraq-national incidence of terrorism.
Evident because terrorists are forced to hit softer civilian targets in foreign lands or evident because they aren't giving peace a chance?
It has even been a failure on its own terms inso far as it has not reduced the incidence of rogue state WMD-proliferation. I mean real rogue states, with fundie apparats and major para-military establishments, such as Pakis and Saudis. Not the
pretend rogue state like Libya.
When we get one, it was a pretend rogue state. When we don't, it's a self evident failure. Breaking news: Pakistan's dismantled WMD Shoppe has lowered their status to Pretend Rogue State. Or Poodle. Take your pick.
We should be grateful for the consequences of GW II, and US servicemen who prosecuted it, as it has resulted in the world
being rid of Hussein and his dreadful political apparatus. ...
What's that under your fig leaf, Jack? Mind if I peek?
But I wonder about Bush's intentions.
Oh my! That's not very much, is it? *puts the leaf back*
Is the War on Terror being prosecuted, ala McCarthy, as domestic politics by other means, in order to push through regressive-tax cuts on the back of militant foreign poliicy arousal amongst confused white Christians?
LOL!!! Oh. You were serious. No blood for tax cuts!!!!
I mean Iraq and Iran are spelt similar, so maybe it does not matter which one we threaten with regime change.
Well, given that Iraq was easier and looked like it would be easier to justify in the UN and our presence there lets us put pressure on Iran and... oh. Wait. Illegitmate war! Sorry.
Similarly, Osama and Sadam have got the same "am" syllable in their name, so maybe Sadam counts for Osama.
That Bushitler, the stupid evil genius! When you reduce everything to a game of DADDY I'LL GET THAT OSAMASADDAM FOR YOU it all becomes SO clear. I'm glad we have national treasures like Jack Strocchi and Maureen Dowd around to peel back the logic from the issues and lay bare the puerile speculations on motivation and intelligence within the Bush Administration.
I do recall that Bush himself has proclaimed that the only war he will lay down his life for is the class war:
Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes.
One hopes that it is not in this sordid economic conflict that more than 500 young Americans have so far lost their lives.
We Should Be Grateful For The Troops Who Gave Their Lives So We Could Use It As A Wedge Issue To Talk About Tax Cuts.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 30, 2004 at 04:41 PMYou seem to be forgetting yourself again Andrea.
I will complete the triad thus:
...and Andrea fools.Posted by: Jack Strocchi at March 30, 2004 at 11:17 PM
Is the War on Terror being prosecuted, ala McCarthy, as domestic politics by other means, in order to push through regressive-tax cuts on the back of militant foreign poliicy arousal amongst confused white Christians?
What do you suppose happens to these people to make this look to them like sense? Is it innate, like shirt-lifting, or is it an acquired trait?
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 31, 2004 at 12:13 AMSortelli, you are definitely incoherent and probably an idiot.
I suggest you increase your incoherency as greater coherency would further define your idiocy.
Jack's new word of the day:
incoherent
Now look it up, before you misuse it again.
Posted by: david at March 31, 2004 at 03:52 AMAwesome use of full intellectual force, Jack! I especially liked the part where you defended your flimsy arguments by providing evidence that the "most of the Right" opposed action in Afghanistan and how you twisted Time and Space to show that the war in Iraq was really just a cover to push through the Top Secret Regressive Tax Cuts that Bush campaigned on before 9-11 and started passing before going into Iraq.
But maybe I'm reading too much into your post about me being incoherent. Maybe you were just trying to insult me instead of pointing out where I am wrong. In that case, I graciously accept your admission of defeat. :)
Posted by: Sortelli at March 31, 2004 at 10:43 AM