Deinonychus antirrhopus

Don't forget this letter from July 2000 where Rep. Chris Shays is unhappy with Clarke inability to present any comprehensive strategy for the Clinton admin.

Allow me to repeat myself from my post below about the ongoing (or upchucking) liberal unhingement:

I read lots of stuff. The conservatives, who have been taking these shots for years, seem to be taking them and responding with reasonably good humor. Liberals seem to have become unhinged. Maybe Krauthammer was on to something with his Bush Derangement Syndrome Theory. However, I see it as a parrallel to the 1930's when FDR was viewed as a class traitor. In this case the eastern establishment, recall that both presidential candidates are Bonesmen, sees Bush as a turncoat and hates him for that reason and not for the bassically centrist policies he has adopted.

How about this: Steve [doesn't] believe Clarke because it agrees with his world view that Bush is a [good] guy to have in the Presidency.

Works both ways.

Second, we have Clarke saying things like, "there was no higher priority" than terrorism during the Clinton Administration. Yet, we have Clarke telling us Bush did very similar things, and in some cases wanted to increase the aggressiveness.

As a member of the Bush team, trying to defend the govt's actions prior to 9/11, how the hell else was he supposed to spin that it wasn't given much urgency? Since there were signs that the threat was increasing during the final days of Clinton's term (Cole bombing) and the early days of Bush's (remember the Taliban blowing up those statues in late summer), shouldn't we have seen something beyond talking point, or at least have documentary evidence of this supposed increase in aggressiveness?

Kis, none of us are claiming that more should not have been done.

However, your bit about the Taliban - "(remember the Taliban blowing up those statues in late summer)" - is absolutely hilarious. The Taliban destruction of ancient Buddhist carvings was an immense crime but it wasn't terrorism.

Kis,

a) "remember the Taliban blowing up those statues in late summer" This would appear to be a sign of increasing Taliban aggressiveness, but that doesn't quite translate into increased AQ aggressiveness.

b) "shouldn't we have seen something beyond talking point, or at least have documentary evidence of this supposed increase in aggressiveness?"

Actually, Clarke seems to have told Dr. Rice in mid-summer that the level of intel being picked up had dropped considerably, probably indicating that any pending attack had been postponed. This would appear to have been a tactical blunder, giving the impression that the level of threat had decreased (if only for the moment) rather than pointing to the reality that most of the prep-work for the attacks was done, obviating the need for further communication. Clarke may well have helped to dampen the government's reaction at precisely the wrong moment.

As a member of the Bush team, trying to defend the govt's actions prior to 9/11, how the hell else was he supposed to spin that it wasn't given much urgency?

Uhhh the problem is that much of his spin were statements of fact such as spending on things like the Northen Alliance. So the question is was it spin or fact? If there was no such spending then its spin.

As for my views on this, I think there is room for criticism on 9/11...constructive criticism. Why did the intelligence fail. However, to answer that question you don't need the POTUS to testify. Also, there are issues of how well the intelligence is being shared today between agencies. So it isn't like there isn't room for criticism, but trying to re-write history and settling personal vendettas and making a buck off of it is pretty sickening.

As for Bush being President and my thinking he is a "good guy" here is a bit of advice. Try reading my blog a little bit first to see if that is indeed out I feel. It will keep you from looking ignorant.

How does the fact of increasing spending or changing policy contradict his primary assertion that it wasn't an urgent issue for Bush, or as important as Iraq to the administration? He hasn't said they did nothing, just that they paid less attention, relatively, than they should have.

Are you denying that Bush probably had more focus on Iraq than Al Queda prior to 9/11? If you support the war in Iraq on broad strategic grounds, then maybe that was the right strategy, though an obvious tactical blunder.

Whatever Clarke motives are - profit or vendetta - it doesn't make him a liar.

I have read you for awhile. Most of the time you do simply follow the Instapundit line of thinking with respect to Bush.

Whatever Clarke motives are - profit or vendetta - it doesn't make him a liar.

That's true. What makes him a liar is that his statements don't match reality.

He hasn't said they did nothing, just that they paid less attention, relatively, than they should have.

He's also saying they "paid less attention" than the Clinton administration, which by his own admission DID LESS. IMHO, doing more about a problem while (maybe) paying less lip-service to it is still doing more about a problem.

Luskin says this:

...Unfortunately, it seems that Watson's realization escaped Richard Clarke. As a Pentagon spokesman put it, "Richard Clarke is missing the context. It's not clear he understands what the global war on terrorism was about."

If Clarke was "out of the loop," it was only because he failed to understand or react to the real threats to national security during the decades that he was responsible for doing so, and failed to stop any of the terrorist attacks that have befallen our country over the last 10+ years.

Furthermore, it was Clarke's job to keep the administration "in the loop," not the other way around.

Apparently, he was too busy for that: "A senior official also said Rice twice complained directly to Clarke about his rare appearances at her senior staff meetings. In one e-mail, Clarke responded he was 'too busy' and that after he missed another meeting Rice responded that he would have a 'problem' if he did not start attending."

When the White House discovered Clarke's ignorance, they demoted him. When Krugman discovered it, he rejoiced.

---

Hey, I'm working again! Got a you're not allowed to post message early this am.

How does the fact of increasing spending or changing policy contradict his primary assertion that it wasn't an urgent issue for Bush, or as important as Iraq to the administration?

Clarke v1.0: Bush has done alot against al Qa'ida, even implementing some policies not implemented under Clinton.

Clarke v2.0: Clinton did more than Bush.

Both statements cannot be true at the same time. His testimony before the 9/11, in short form, was: "I was lying for the Administration like a good foot soldier."

Are you denying that Bush probably had more focus on Iraq than Al Queda prior to 9/11?

No, I'm not denying that at all. Further, I'll say that such a thing may not have even been wrong, pre-9/11. Post 9/11 with the benefit of hind-sight it was clearly the wrong place to be focusing. Its really quite simple Kis. You have a finite amount of resources and a number of national security issues. As such you rank the issues by their percieved threat level. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't. Now are you telling me you have never made a mistake?

Whatever Clarke motives are - profit or vendetta - it doesn't make him a liar.

No, merely despicable.

I have read you for awhile. Most of the time you do simply follow the Instapundit line of thinking with respect to Bush.

That may very well be true.

You argue like a child, Kis. In a child that is tolerable because a child is expected to grow up.

Both statements cannot be true at the same time.

Wrong. If you watched the 60 Minutes interview, he explained exactly what the difference was. Namely, that Clinton's team, despite their foreign policy faults, treated the threat of domestic terrorism as an 'urgent' cabinet level concern, with daily meetings and lots of information sharing. Bush, while he increased funding and changed foreign policy in the 7 months leading up to 9/11, did not conduct regular cabinet level meetings on the domestic threat despite an increase in chatter - ie, Clarke felt that there was no sense of urgency.

It is not a black/white thing of doing more or less.

On the issue of focus - there was evidence of an Al Queda terrorism threat - failed Millenium bombing, recent Pakistani hijackings, Cole bombing. There was no evidence of an Iraqi terrorism threat.

I can see that Kis and Clarke both fit well into the Clinton philosophy - more talk, less action.

Kis, your reference to Iraq is another misrepresentation by you.

hmm, all talk, no action. Versus Bush?

The primary differences in the Bush proposal were calls for more direct financial and logistical support to the Northern Alliance and the anti-Taliban Pashtuns and, if that failed, to eventually seek the overthrow of the Taliban through proxies. The plan also called for drafting plans for possible U.S. military involvement, according to testimony and commission findings.

But those differences were largely theoretical; administration officials told the panel's investigators that the plan's overall timeline was at least three years, and it did not include firm deadlines, military plans or significant funding at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

From WaPo today. Also -

James M. Lindsay, who also worked under Clarke, concurred that people "thought he was exaggerating the threat" and said he "always wanted to do more" than higher-ups approved.

Daalder and Lindsay say Clarke's criticism of Bush is based on the administration's emphasis, not its policy. "His criticism of Bush pre-9/11 is not necessarily that they didn't have a good strategy but that they didn't take the threat sufficiently seriously."

Nice try. Thanks for playing.

Kis:

You can support Kerry (or Nader or Buchannan or Kim Jong Il if you wish), but Richar clarke is not going to carry your water. Try this from this week's Time Magazine:

The accounts of high-level conversations and meetings given by Clarke in various television appearances, beginning with the 60 Minutes interview, differ in significant respects from the recollections of a former top counterterrorism official who participated in the same conversations and meetings: Richard Clarke. In several cases, the version of events provided by Clarke this week include details and embellishments that do not appear in his new book, Against All Enemies. While the discrepancies do not, on their own, discredit Clarke's larger arguments, they do raise questions about whether Clarke's eagerness to publicize his story and rip the Bush Administration have clouded his memory of the facts.

By the time this is over the guy's mother won't cash his checks without two forms of ID.

Wrong. If you watched the 60 Minutes interview, he explained exactly what the difference was. Namely, that Clinton's team, despite their foreign policy faults, treated the threat of domestic terrorism as an 'urgent' cabinet level concern, with daily meetings and lots of information sharing. Bush, while he increased funding and changed foreign policy in the 7 months leading up to 9/11, did not conduct regular cabinet level meetings on the domestic threat despite an increase in chatter - ie, Clarke felt that there was no sense of urgency.

Ahhh...so even if Bush does more, but doesn't consider it as important as the Clinton Administration this is "bad" for some inexplicable reason.

Also, if you look at what I wrote the two positions are logically mutually exclusive.

As for the Bush policies, what did you expect them to have everything ready to go by January 2001? It takes some time to make the transition.

"His criticism of Bush pre-9/11 is not necessarily that they didn't have a good strategy but that they didn't take the threat sufficiently seriously."

The problem with this kind of criticism is the subjective nature of it. I don't feel, you Kis, takes the inconsistencies in what Clarke is saying seriously enough. You can't argue I am wrong as it is my own personal assessment, and is totally subjective.

If you watched the 60 Minutes interview, he explained exactly what the difference was. Namely, that Clinton's team, despite their foreign policy faults, treated the threat of domestic terrorism as an 'urgent' cabinet level concern, with daily meetings and lots of information sharing. Bush, while he increased funding and changed foreign policy in the 7 months leading up to 9/11, did not conduct regular cabinet level meetings on the domestic threat despite an increase in chatter - ie, Clarke felt that there was no sense of urgency.

There is a certain Dilbertesque humor in this quote. If its an important problem we need to have more meetings, if there are not a lot of meetings you are not taking the problem seriously. To be able to say such things is proof of a life wasted in the bowels of the bureaucracy. To take them seriously is evidence of vacuity.

Yet, when Clarke had the chance to talk to W in June - he chose to discuss cyberterrorism instead. Because the chatter fell off????

Sounds to me it was a difference in management styles.

W trusts his people to do the job w/o hanging over their shoulders and making sure it gets done. One might also say W's people took it seriously because they didn't need someone riding them. What was Bubba's cabinet, teenagers????

Once again, style over substance. Which basically defines Bubba's admin.

--Namely, that Clinton's team, despite their foreign policy faults, treated the threat of domestic terrorism as an 'urgent' cabinet level concern, with daily meetings and lots of information sharing.--

What month and year did they start treating it as "urgent?"

--James M. Lindsay, who also worked under Clarke, concurred that people "thought he was exaggerating the threat" and said he "always wanted to do more" than higher-ups approved.--

Since I refuse to register, which administration? This guy at the Council on Foreign Relations?

--Director, Global Issues and Multilateral Affairs, National Security Council (1996-1997).--

So this guy (if it is him) during the Clinton Admin says that the "higher-ups" Clinton, Mad Maddie, Sandy and whoever else didn't want to "do" more than meet??? Isn't that was Clarke is saying??? Didn't sound urgent to me, of course, we only had WTC #1, the attempted blowing up of planes via the Philippines in 1995 and Kenya?? (or was it Tanzania?? 1996?

Whatever you say, Kis.

As Adesnik at Oxblog says, "Ouch."

[9/11] commission's determination that the two policies were roughly the same calls into question claims made by Bush officials that they were developing a superior terrorism policy. The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush's approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration's lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.

Clarke did not respond to efforts to reach him for comment yesterday.

One thing obvious to me was that one of the Bush administration's biggest errors was not firing Clarke earlier in favor of someone more competent.

"Nice try. Thanks for playing." - Kis

Childish playground talk. Time for your nap. You are getting cranky. (See how easy that is?)

NY Post OpEd today, via Lucianne:

No, Thanks, Mr. Clarke:

...It was very disturbing, then, to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

We are well aware that the friends and family members of those killed in 9/11 do not speak with a single voice on all issues. Nonetheless, the notion of profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us.

We find Mr. Clarke's actions all the more offensive especially considering the fact that there was always a high possibility that the 9/11 Commission could be used for political gain, especially now, with the presidential election less than eight months away.

Surely, Mr. Clarke knew this. Yet he decided to risk the actual and perceived impartiality of this important process to maximize book sales.

As family and friends of those killed on 9/11, we believe it inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to profit from and politicize 9/11, and further divide America, by his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

Indeed, we are now seeing some partisans more interested in somehow laying blame for 9/11 at the feet of President Bush - even though what we heard from both Bush and Clinton administration officials confirms what we already believed: that while al Qaeda was a known threat, no one could have known that 19 terrorists already in the United States would hijack domestic aircraft and fly them in to the World Trade Center and Pentagon....

Sandy P. - That NYT Op-Ed you posted was one long ad hominem attack. LOL.

Besides which it is premised on the idea that Clarke is the one who had control over the timing of publication. It's on record that he submitted the manuscript to the White House in October with the intent of having this be a Christmas season book. Really, that's the time to be selling books, ask anyone in the publishing business. The White House held it up and it was finally submitted to the publisher, with full White House clearance, in January sometime. It was out of Clarke's hands.

I've only been following this drama very lightly because of work and travel commitments but I did get to watch the Meet the Press interview today and Clarke handled himself very well. Of all of the Administration players, I like Rumsfeld's composure the best during interviews and Clarke is even better. The Administration is up against a master bureaucratic knifefighter in Clarke and they've had since October to develop talking points and cover your ass positions and this is the best they can do? My complaint with President Bush has always centered on incompetence and the Administration's handling of their Clarke strategy makes them look more like Keystone Kops than they did before.

From a survey of Left and Right blogs and news sources, the following quote struck me as getting at the root of the matter.

What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened.

One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.

This administration has used and continues to use literally unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in other parts of the executive branch.

As I've written before, my political choice in November would be so much simpler if someone had risen to challenge President Bush in the Republican primaries and given me a viable alternative to the Democratic candidate. The solid support President Bush gets is simply astounding to me. Kennedy rose to challenge Carter, so where was the Republican savior?

Actually, Tango, it gets even better - from a post @ Bros. Judd:

My personal fave from today was when Clark blamed the CIA and FBI for not giving Clinton the information on the Cole bombing to allow for a retaliatory strike.

Going after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice is one thing, but now he's alleged at deliberate deriliction of duty at best, and cover-up at worst, by the nation's two security agencies while Clinton, not Bush was in office -- an action that, by his inference, helped lead to 9/11. The career people at both agencies ought to be having fun right now with that allegation, especially the top staff CIA, since Tenet is still on the job. Both agencies without a doubt had failures before the WTC and Pentagon attacks, but Clarke's allegation of deliberate mendacity goes beyond what anyone has alleged before.

---

And Berger said there weren't enough people killed in the Cole to do anything.

And Berger said there weren't enough people killed in the Cole to do anything.

12 Americans were killed in the Embassy bombings and 17 Americans were killed on the USS Cole. I remember President Clinton's retaliation during the impeachment debacle and thought it was a diversionary tactic. I remember I was of mixed opinion - on the one hand, I thought President Clinton should have targeted Osama more thoroughly but on the other hand I didn't know as much about Al Queda and Taliban cooperation and the degree to which Afghanistan was a state taken over by terrorists so the Clinton response may have been distractionary. I do remember the Republican claims that President Clinton's response was a Wag the Dog response and no one from the Republicans was publicly proclaiming that President Clinton wasn't forceful enough in his response.

So, considering what we all knew back then, I think Berger's response is actually accurate. What is troubling is the tendency of people to be intellectually dishonest and judge from hindsight and forget what they were saying and thinking back in the midst of the impeachment period.

If Clarke really was the fixated bureaucrat who was always advocating stronger responses, then he was correct and the moderates of both parties were in the wrong. Maybe he's making himself look more prescient than he was and if so, then the goods will come out on him. But just as I tell my liberal friends, Just because President Bush said something doesn't mean he's wrong and after the dust settles Republicans may have to face up to the fact that Clarke's testimony holds up and President Bush was on the wrong side of policy prior to 9/11 and, while Iraq and the Mid-East are swamps that needed to be drained, perhaps his timing was off for it did distract from the War On Terror. Simply, the incompetence of the Administration became manifest in yet another field of endeavor.

TangoMan, the impeachment excuse only covers one action by the Clinton administration following one terrorist attack.

Clarke's testimony isn't holding up at all. The attempt by Democrats and Clarke to fit the immediate aftermath of 9/11 into a meme of obsession with Iraq has also failed. The immediate actions after 9/11 were to move effectively against the Taliban regime sheltering Al Queda. The claim that Iraq was a "distraction" is one often made but never backed up with any actual argument.

Now we see that appeals to Clarke's testimony are becoming more and more vague as those attempting to use Clarke to attack the Bush administration realize that there is no substance.

Besides which it is premised on the idea that Clarke is the one who had control over the timing of publication. It's on record that he submitted the manuscript to the White House in October with the intent of having this be a Christmas season book. Really, that's the time to be selling books, ask anyone in the publishing business. The White House held it up and it was finally submitted to the publisher, with full White House clearance, in January sometime. It was out of Clarke's hands.

Let me be clear on this one here. I think this "the White House held the book up" spiel is bravo sierra. It is standard procedure to take anything written by somebody in the intelligence agencies and review it for possible national security leaks. It is not unusual. Submitting the book for review in October was submitting it awfully late for the Xmas season, IMO. So this idea that the WH held up the publication of the book is just ridiculous.

...Just because President Bush said something doesn't mean he's wrong and after the dust settles Republicans may have to face up to the fact that Clarke's testimony holds up and President Bush was on the wrong side of policy prior to 9/11 and,....

I think that with the benefit of hindsight we can say for certain the above criticism is true. The problem is that we have to look at the situation prior to 9/11 to decide if Bush was acting negligently or badly. My view is that it is entirely possible for Bush, Clinton and both Administrations to have been taking actions, at the time that looked reasonable. We have all befallen such errors. You know x could be a problem. You take measures a, b and c to minimize the costs of x, but then x happens and you were wrong about the efficacy of a,b, and c.

The problems I have with Clarke are the following.

1. It looks like he is settling a personal vendetta against Rice.
2. He is clearly profitting from all this which is rather disgusting. He could easily avoid this and lend even stronger moral suasion to his postion by have setting up some sort of charity donation for his profits form the book.
3. The policy responses, which to me is what really matters, were about the same from Clinton to Bush. Singling out the Bush administration for these things strikes me as being partisan and/or settling a personal grudge.
4. There is the real possibility that Clarke has some legitimate criticisms, but those messages are going to be lost due to the overly charged atmosphere around Clake.

The last one highlights why I hold Clarke in such low regard (I personally equate him right now to the same level I would a piece of shit sitting in the toilet). The last one could very well result in the real issues being lost and the reason they are lost is that Clarke has decided to settle a personal vendetta. So he strokes his own ego, but does a massive dis-service to every American. If this is the case, and based on what I've read so far it could very well be, Clarke is a vile despicable man who should suffer greatly.

Steve, I would add that Clarke has done irreparable harm to the National Security Council institution itself - never again will an administration retain people from previous administrations in this institution.

That damage is literally incalculable.

And so much for Executive Privilege. If Condi has to testify in public, it's setting precedent.

Sometimes I think we're watching the Constitution being shredded right before our eyes, and no one's really paying attention.

Of course, no one's asked Keen about setting precedent, how this will affect all admins going forward.

Via Lucianne, part of a NY Post article:

The blistering letter, signed by more than 36 people who lost loved ones in the WTC, came a day after the Senate's top Republican, Bill Frist, accused Clark of an "appalling act of profiteering."

Meanwhile, a Newsweek poll released yesterday found that 65 percent of Americans say Clarke's testimony hasn't affected their opinion of the president.

Fifty percent of those polled said they believe Clarke is motivated by personal and political reasons.

--

Newsweek - H. Finemann's (sp) place of residence, yes? The same one who coached Kerry in Franken's home?

This is a test.

So this idea that the WH held up the publication of the book is just ridiculous.

If people see these things through a Grand Conspiracy filter and make claims that Clarke timed this to coincide with the hearings, then it is quite proper to point out to them that there are many parts of the publishing process that are beyond his and his publishers control. If Clarke was careful in his use of source material and didn't include classified material, then the White House vetting process would take less time than otherwise. The fact that I point out this information doesn't mean I subscribe to the view that the White House tried to squelch the book.

To dump further cold water on the people who think Clarke timed this all to coincide with the hearings, keep in mind that the deadline was recently extended by two months. How Clarke knew all of this a year ago when he was writing his book is beyond me. How he knew when the hearings would be held is beyond me. How he knew how long it would take the White House to vet his book is beyond me. There are simply too many issues beyond his control for him to time the publication of his book so perfectly.

My view is that it is entirely possible for Bush, Clinton and both Administrations to have been taking actions, at the time that looked reasonable. We have all befallen such errors.

Absolutely. The problem that is at the root of this whole issue, at least in my quick analysis as I'm playing catch-up with the news, is that there is a comparison between the Bush and Clinton administration approaches to the problem, not that they each made inadequate, but thoroughly justifiable, decisions.

Further compounding the problem is that people have an unfair tendancy to judge in the intellectual dishonest fashion of benefiting from hindsight. That's the politics that Bush faces. Also, even if one wants to be fair about the basis of judgement and looks at the defensible decisions that President Bush made, the simple fact is that he didn't prevent the attacks and didn't do all that could have been done. Consider a private sector example - if I make a marketing decision on a product and it bombs and it comes out that I still did everything by the books, I'm still likely to be fired because I was responsible for the failure. It was President Bush's watch, he didn't prevent the attacks, whether he could or couldn't have may be completely immaterial, and some may hold him responsible for making the wrong decisions.

It looks like he is settling a personal vendetta against Rice.

So what? If Clarke has the goods on Rice then let it fly. Why should Clarke be held to a different standard than anyone else.

He is clearly profitting from all this which is rather disgusting. He could easily avoid this and lend even stronger moral suasion to his postion by have setting up some sort of charity donation for his profits form the book.

He won't profit if you don't buy his book. What concern is it of yours if other people enter into a mutually beneficial trade and buy his book. Their enriching Clarke is a decision that they've made. Further Clarke has publically stated that he will be donating a portion of proceeds to 9/11 victims, as well as to special forces widows. Moreover, Clarke also stated that he is aware that there is a concerted effort to insure that he never works in Washington again and that this effort is being directed by President Bush's associates and he needs to keep that in mind. I don't read people decrying this Black List tactic from the Administration and Republican leadership. I'm sure you've seen the reports of how the Republican leadership has strong armed lobbying groups to black list Democrats and load up on Republicans and this egregious tactic is far and beyond the cronyism of standard practice.

The policy responses, which to me is what really matters, were about the same from Clinton to Bush.

I'll start with the caveat that I haven't yet read Clarke's book, and apparently haven't been following this affair as closely as you and most of your commentators. That said, it appears that there are some substantive points to Clarke's narrative though I'm willing to be disabused of this opinion with facts. ISTM that the Bush Administration approach was a state centered focus that paid scant attention to non-state actors. Even the Administration has admitted that Clarke was very vocal in calling for action on the non-state actors and his opinions were shunted aside. Clarke had greater access to President Clinton than President Bush, he had greater authority to liase with agencies and departments while under the Clinton Adminsitration than under the Bush Administration. These types of points tell the story of how important one is in the pecking order and how much one is listend to and whether action is taken on one's policy advice.

President Bush made the wrong calls, and focused on state threats. That was his call and he believed he had the right focus. What's happening now is that he is being held to account for the decisions he has made. In hindsight they were improperly focused.

There is the real possibility that Clarke has some legitimate criticisms, but those messages are going to be lost due to the overly charged atmosphere around Clake.

You're right that Clarke may be a lightening rod. However, the bi-partisan commission seems to be doing a good job of keeping politics out of the process, in that I don't see the partisan hacks being on the commission itself. We'll have to leave it to them to see how much of Clarke's testimony is crucial to their understanding and how much is simply vendetta.

Look back to the link I posted in my previous comment. Why is this Administration so obstructionist on releasing details and being uncooperative? That sends up red flags for me.

I know I'll never get my wish of partisan Republicans admitting that their party did something wrong and the same goes for the partisan Democrats. My Party Right Or Wrong. I f****** hate this standard operating procedure.

Whatever happended to upholding standards irrespective of political party?

Lastly, to your opinions of Clarke. Didn't you write in an earlier comment that this is the way that Washington politics is played. Administrator Scully threatened to fire an actuary if he revealed to Congress that the Administration Medicare estimates were purpose underestimated by $140 Billion dollars. Purposeful lying to Congress is no problem. Clarke had serious policy disputes with this Administration and believed that they were acting irresponsibly, so what should he do? Keep his mouth shut? This Administration has been obstructionist to this whole 9/11 commission. Look back to the history, they even opposed its formation and have been uncooperative throughout. Are you sure you want to cast your defense in their direction? None of this would be controversial is there wasn't so much Administration resistence, but trying to vilify Clarke on every point just riles up the party attack dogs and the blind & faithful.

It is the management practices and fervor of this Administration that is the problem we're seeing now. It's not Republican versus Democrat, it's incompetence trying to cover its ass, and that's why there are movements that attract Republicans to vote against Bush. He's the problem, not the party.

Meanwhile, a Newsweek poll released yesterday found that 65 percent of Americans say Clarke's testimony hasn't affected their opinion of the president.

That leaves 35% who have had their opinions changed. I'd say all of the Deaniacs were all unchanged and the same with the Neo-Cons and Christian right. Then there are the swing voters, and they are the most willing to have their opinions changed. I don't think they make up 35% of the electorate. The fact that 35% admit to changing their opinion is truely staggering for it means that one way or the other, party faithful are being shaken loose and moving in a direction opposite their natural inclination. Personally I can't see the majority of them coming over to favor the Bush position considering the failings that have become manifest in the Bush response to Clarke's testimony. That means Bush supporters being swayed against Bush.

I wrote earlier that Clarke is a master bureaucratic knifefighter, and the tough bullyboys of this Administration are outclassed and picked a fight with the wrong guy. I missed all of his previous TV testimony but he was superb on Meet The Press today.

So what? If Clarke has the goods on Rice then let it fly. Why should Clarke be held to a different standard than anyone else.

If it is, "That cunt took away my cabinet level position," then there is indeed a very real problem that he is re-writing history to suit his goal. If he is re-writing history then he is clouding the issue of intelligence failure, not helping it.

He won't profit if you don't buy his book. What concern is it of yours if other people enter into a mutually beneficial trade and buy his book. Their enriching Clarke is a decision that they've made. Further Clarke has publically stated that he will be donating a portion of proceeds to 9/11 victims, as well as to special forces widows.

I'm not disputing that he can make money off of this issue, but just as he is entitled to such an endeavor so am I entitled to giving my opinion on it. It looks smarmy and disgusting. Even though he might have a right to do something, doesn't mean I have to like what he is doing.

These types of points tell the story of how important one is in the pecking order and how much one is listend to and whether action is taken on one's policy advice.

President Bush made the wrong calls, and focused on state threats. That was his call and he believed he had the right focus. What's happening now is that he is being held to account for the decisions he has made. In hindsight they were improperly focused.

Just highlighting that your comments are starting to sound like mine. He was demoted and I'm sure it pissed him off. Second, with hindsight we can blame lots of people, and not just Bush. For example, if Clarke was so important in the Clinton Administration how come he didn't push for stronger measures after the al Qa'ida attacks during those times?

Lastly, to your opinions of Clarke. Didn't you write in an earlier comment that this is the way that Washington politics is played. Administrator Scully threatened to fire an actuary if he revealed to Congress that the Administration Medicare estimates were purpose underestimated by $140 Billion dollars. Purposeful lying to Congress is no problem. Clarke had serious policy disputes with this Administration and believed that they were acting irresponsibly, so what should he do? Keep his mouth shut?

Well, guess I'm being arbitrary when I draw the line at the point where lives are at stake as well as the security of the country. It is one of the, as I see it, legitmate areas of government action.

Should he keep his mouth shut? No. He should be telling the truth, but it seems we have two Clarke's. One who lied, and did so repeatedly. Then there is the Clarke that is now the paragon of truth and virtue, who wouldn't dare stretch the truth to settle personal scores and make a buck or two.

That leaves 35% who have had their opinions changed.

Maybe, or part of that number includes LIHOPers and MIHOPers. I have no idea how many people belong to that deranged group, but there are those kool-aid drinkers.

TangoMan,

"You're right that Clarke may be a lightening rod. However, the bi-partisan commission seems to be doing a good job of keeping politics out of the process, in that I don't see the partisan hacks being on the commission itself. "

The above really was a hilarious paragraph.

I find it interesting that among the items you list are these:

"Clarke had greater access to President Clinton than President Bush, he had greater authority to liase with agencies and departments while under the Clinton Adminsitration than under the Bush Administration. These types of points tell the story of how important one is in the pecking order and how much one is listend to and whether action is taken on one's policy advice."

You confuse the recitation of Clarke's relative importance and audience with Bush administration substantive policy. And you cherry-pick the pieces of Clarke's themes to the point of misrepresentation. Clarke's big themes included cyber terrorism - a good reason for him to be viewed as peripheral to the real issues of terrorism.

Robin,

From our few volleys so far, you seem to respond with humor to points that you can't dispute. I'm not sure where the humor is in my pointing out how the commission members don't seem to be politicized.

Here are the bios of the commission members. Governor Kean, Senator Gorton, and Secretary Lehman are all the types of Republicans that I admire. Representative Hamilton and Senator Kerrey are the types of Democrats I admire. I think these are good people, and not the mindless party hacks that seem to inhabit and represent both parties. I don't see these people mouthing the party lines that we would expect.

You confuse the recitation of Clarke's relative importance and audience with Bush administration substantive policy.

With respect, I don't. This is a very difficult error to make considering the shortfalls of President Bush's policy, and calling what there is of the policy substantive is misleading in the extreme.

And you cherry-pick the pieces of Clarke's themes to the point of misrepresentation.

I could always write more in order to flesh out the point if you felt that I didn't write enough. What I wrote was in response to the points raised thus far in the thread and is not a complete summation of my viewpoint.

Glad to see you all got your RNC-approved talking points. Accusing others of misguided credulity is the mirror image of you guys' credulity toward the Bush administration. So far, they are solidly ahead in the inconsistency department. But as to "Bush's plans were the same as Clinton's if not more aggressive in some regards," you are missing the forest for looking at the trees. I recommend this post by Juan Cole.

If he is re-writing history then he is clouding the issue of intelligence failure, not helping it.

I wrote that if Clarke is on a personal vendetta against Rice, then so what. If he's got the goods on her, then let it rip. If he is rewriting history then nail his ass with a perjury charge and publically refute him with evidence. Considering the incompetence of the members of this Administration I think that Clarke's charges have a ring of truth to them and are wholly believable for they follow a pattern for this Administration.

If Clarke is fabricating evidence, then I'll be surprised but very forthright in saying my view of the Administration was wrong and that Clarke should have the full weight of the law bearing down on him for his criminal acts.

Did you notice how quick the calls are to declassify national security documents. The declassification of these documents for inclusion in the 9-11 commission was thoroughly and virorously resisted by the Administration but now they want to declassify them for political payback. What the hell happened? Getting at the truth was trumped by national security concerns. OK. But now they're saying political payback has a higher precedence than national security.

It looks smarmy and disgusting.

Perhaps, depending on the motives you ascribe to Clarke. ISTM, that standard operating procedure for people leaving Administrations is to write a book if they have something to say. Clarke obviously disagreed with this Administration, so what should he have done to appear less smarmy and disgusting? Keep in mind that you want to get your message out to the public because you don't cede to President Bush the claim that he is the candidate that is toughest on terrorism. You seriously dispute that claim. What do you do that is as effective as writing this book?

Just highlighting that your comments are starting to sound like mine.

Perhaps. If any of the Republican members of the 9-11 Commission were running for President I'd vote for any of them over Bush or Kerry. I'd vote for McCain. I voted for Reagan and G.H.W. Bush, but the current President Bush is incompetent and this flaw is manifested in his policies and the operation of the White House. I don't owe sympathy to Democratic Party principles for I'm pretty much against all sorts of leftist causes and uneconomic prinicples. I recognize that Clarke may have human failings and there may be animus in his testimony. However, I thoroughly believe that all his charges are plausable because they are directed against an incompetent Administration that has much to hide and has been obstructionist in their measures against this commission since its inception.

TangoMan - Clarke had serious policy disputes with this Administration and believed that they were acting irresponsibly, so what should he do? Keep his mouth shut?

Steve - Well, guess I'm being arbitrary when I draw the line at the point where lives are at stake as well as the security of the country. It is one of the, as I see it, legitmate areas of government action.

If I'm reading your comment correctly, you're saying that Clarke did the right thing by coming forward with his criticism because he believed there was incompetence and misrepresentation within the Administration and as you say when lives and national security are at stake, then it is incumbent upon people to come forward and shine a light onto the malfeasance. If this is indeed your position, then I'm in complete agreement with you.

He should be telling the truth, but it seems we have two Clarke's. One who lied, and did so repeatedly.

As I wrote earlier, I'm just now getting up to speed on this issue. I'm not sure what lie Clarke was caught in. If the lie is that he was a spokesman for the Administration and now he's its opponent then I certainly don't consider that situation to be a Two Clarke Situation. In my professional life, I've had to be a press spokesman for my company and had to defend positions that I didn't agree with in deliberations. I'm sure most professional managers know that you may disagree with policy during formulation but once it is decided then everyone has to support and defend it. If this is the basis for the charge that Clarke is two-faced, then those making the charge are babes-in-the-woods, who don't understand the requirements of a professional. Just like young children who accuse actors of being liers because they're acting out fiction.

apostropher, - Thanks for the link. Look here for some very detailed commentary. If you read deeper into the comments you'll see the back and forth starting and I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on which side makes for a better argued and naunced case.

"From our few volleys so far, you seem to respond with humor to points that you can't dispute."

TangoMan, you merely assume the truth of arguments you cannot support.

You point to the bios and then assert that some of the commission members were people you "admire"; therefore the commission is non-partisan. That does nothing to support your claim. And their actions don't match your admiration. A non-partisan commission would not be operating so as to interject itself into a Presidential election campaign in the circus atmosphere they've created.

As for the state-oriented versus stateless views of terrorism, again you assume what you cannot support - the correctness of your view of that as an error. David Frum has a good response to that. The change in focus is a rational one, attacking Al Queda in a different part of its infrastructure. Your continual assertions of incompetence remain unsupported.

You point to the bios and then assert that some of the commission members were people you "admire"; therefore the commission is non-partisan.

Firstly, I never asserted that my admiration leads to commission non-partisanship, that is simply your twisting the argument.

I hold those commission members in higher esteem because they can cooperate across party lines and work towards a common goal without angling to score points against their political opponents. Perhaps it says more about me than about the commssion members when I value their cooperation towards a goal more highly than party politics. It is their cooperation that leads me to conclude that they are non-partisan. My admiration flows from that observation and not the reverse as you assert.

A non-partisan commission would not be operating so as to interject itself into a Presidential election campaign in the circus atmosphere they've created.

Do you even read what you write? Is everything some sinister plot against President Bush and nothing the man does can ever be wrong? Who fought the creation of this commission? These commission hearings could have happened months ago with Administration support. The timing is not sinister intent and for you to entertain such notions leads me to wonder how objective you can be in looking at data.

As for Frum's analysis, I'm left wondering how you thought that it adequately addressed the state versus stateless issue. By his reasoning now that Afghanistan and Iraq have been invaded, we should not have to fear Al Queda because they have no state within which they can seek refuge and base their operations. Phew, that's a relief. Yes, the State Approach has removed the threat of Al Queda and now we can all relax because the Stateless Terrorist Threat has been vanquished.

As for your new line of "you assume what you cannot support" that's nice rhetoric but wholly useless in that you never dispute the points. I would be dumbfounded to read a criticism of President Bush or the Republican Party that was written by you. I fear that nothing could dislodge you from the vanguard. No facts could be objectively agreed upon between us. No analysis that cast this Administration in a bad light would be accepted by you. Therefore any attempts to do so are simply viewed by you as unsupportable assertions.

As for the committee composition, I'd like to see your picks. I'd guess that it would be a DeLay, Coulter, Limbaugh, Clinton, Franken, Dean lineup. Yeah that would be very conducive to cooperative work.

Your continual assertions of incompetence remain unsupported.

I shake my head and wonder if this is really an honest question or just an attempt at verbal warfare through exhausting your opponent?

I haven't been a reader of Steve's blog for that long but he's assured me that he has criticized President Bush's policies on occasion. Perhaps you can look to those criticisms and take them as quick proxies for my own. At least they will serve the purpose of demonstrating to you that President Bush can do some wrong in the opinion of people who show him some support.

Glad to see you all got your RNC-approved talking points. Accusing others of misguided credulity is the mirror image of you guys' credulity toward the Bush administration.

Where exactly do you see credulity at the Bush Administration. I'm just quite suspicious of Clarke. He looks like a man with a few too many ulterior motives.

So far, they are solidly ahead in the inconsistency department. But as to "Bush's plans were the same as Clinton's if not more aggressive in some regards," you are missing the forest for looking at the trees. I recommend this post by Juan Cole.

In other words: I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you saw bounces off me, and sticks to you!

TangoMan,

I wrote that if Clarke is on a personal vendetta against Rice, then so what. If he's got the goods on her, then let it rip. If he is rewriting history then nail his ass with a perjury charge and publically refute him with evidence.

First, I can't. I am neither an attorney nor a prosecutor. Second, I have posted bits I think are contradictory and also links to other stuff that calls Clarke's testimony into question.

Did you notice how quick the calls are to declassify national security documents. The declassification of these documents for inclusion in the 9-11 commission was thoroughly and virorously resisted by the Administration but now they want to declassify them for political payback. What the hell happened?

Sure it is political payback. You yourself noted Clarke is a skillful opponent. So now records that otherwise wouldn't be declassified for quite possibly national security reasons are being declassified for political purposes. This is the down side of turning the 9/11 comission into a political game of "Gotcha" and "Finger Pointing". We'll likely not get anything worthwhile out of it now and I think there is room for criticism of Bush on this (Note to apostropher: Next time search my site, it'll help CYA.). To pretend Clarke was unaware of this possibility and then he trots out accusations that can only be rebutted by such declassification is a bad thing, and yes both sides are responsible for this.

If I'm reading your comment correctly, you're saying that Clarke did the right thing by coming forward with his criticism because he believed there was incompetence and misrepresentation within the Administration and as you say when lives and national security are at stake, then it is incumbent upon people to come forward and shine a light onto the malfeasance. If this is indeed your position, then I'm in complete agreement with you.

No, what I'm saying is that Clarke could have gone to the media right away. He could have donated all the money he's going to to charitable organizations to remove the criticism of profiteering. He has failed to do both things and that makes me suspicious. Granted his book being reviewed by the WH isn't surprising. However, as you note, Clarke is a masterful bureaucratic fighter. Could he have been planing to get his version out as close to the election as possible? He is very crafty and smart. Whe he testified before the 9/11 comission he made a big deal about saying he asked for a Republican ballot. Now we learn that was a subtle bit of mis-direction and that Clarke has given only to Democrats, and voted for Al Gore. When the Bush Administration does stuff like this it is the height of infamy...when Clarke does it...yawn.

In my professional life, I've had to be a press spokesman for my company and had to defend positions that I didn't agree with in deliberations. I'm sure most professional managers know that you may disagree with policy during formulation but once it is decided then everyone has to support and defend it. If this is the basis for the charge that Clarke is two-faced, then those making the charge are babes-in-the-woods, who don't understand the requirements of a professional. Just like young children who accuse actors of being liers because they're acting out fiction.

Well saying something you disagree with, and then putting a good face on something that is so odious as what Clarke is saying I draw a distinction. This is why I couldn't be an attorney who goes out and says completely wonderful things in defense of their clients who are despicable (e.g. O.J.'s attorneys).

So now records that otherwise wouldn't be declassified for quite possibly national security reasons are being declassified for political purposes.

The Administration can turn to the secret courts authorized by the Patriot Act and indict Clarke on his alleged perjury without declassifying. The trial can be expedited to verdict long before the election because the matter would simply rest on whether the records bear out the contention that he committed perjury. Open and shut. Then release the verdict to the press.

It won't happen because, IMO, the politics is more important to the Administration than is National Security. Bush needs to salvage his trump card, namely he's the go-to guy for national security. Many Republicans have abandoned supporting his fiscal and social policies and will only vote for him because they don't trust Senator Kerry to prosecute the War on terror. If Bush turns out to be an emporer without clothes, then he's done.

This is the down side of turning the 9/11 comission into a political game of "Gotcha" and "Finger Pointing".

It could have turned out so differently for the President. He could have called for the commission to be formed immediately after 9/11 and put his prestige into finding out what happened and insuring that it would never happen again. The nation would have been behind its President and still in national grieving and been more forgiving. You made the same type of observation about Iraq.

Instead, almost three years later and on the eve of an election he has to contend with this. They thought they could hide something and it always comes up and bites you in the ass. You'd think some one would have learned from the Tylenol poisonings on how to handle a crisis.

No, what I'm saying is that Clarke could have gone to the media right away.

Books don't write themselves overnight. Clarke had a lot to say and a lot of detail for background that needed to be laid out for the entirety of his argument to be understood. He'd have been worthless as a departing Administration figure going to the press and saying, "President Bush didn't do enough to fight terrorism" and having to do it in a soundbite. Besides, Clarke isn't a sole voice crying out in the wilderness.

Could he have been planing to get his version out as close to the election as possible? He is very crafty and smart.

This I see as completely plausible. I would do that if I were in his shoes for three reasons. First, people are politically primed and would be attuned to this kind of material. Secondly, it would damage President Bush's claim that he is the best candidate to prosecute the War On Terror. Thirdly, it would earn me the greatest amount of money.

I personally think the following is an important point: If I honestly believed that President Bush was misguided and actually de-emphasized the War on Terror compared to President Clinton, then Clarke is in the right for getting his story out. If, OTOH, this is nothing more than revenge and he is fabricating his charges, then he is a disgrace and a liar. If one looks beyond the spin that's floating everywhere many of his charges hold up so far. Are his inconsistencies minor or major? Simple inconsistencies I don't believe are grounds for outright disqualification of his entire message.

Now we learn that was a subtle bit of mis-direction and that Clarke has given only to Democrats, and voted for Al Gore.

Yes, that's true. I've seen the stories that point to this claim. I also found this story:

But what about this presidential election year? According to FEC records, Clarke has been giving his money to Democratic friends -- not Republicans -- running for national office.

In 2002, while still on the Bush National Security Council (NSC), Clarke gave the legal maximum limit of $2,000 to a Democratic candidate for Congress, Steve Andreasen, who tried to unseat Republican Congressman Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota. Andreason had been director for defense policy and arms control on the Clinton NSC.

[....]

Clarke maxed out again in the 2004 election cycle, donating $2,000 to another Clinton White House veteran, Jamie Metzl, who is running as a Democrat for Congress from Missouri. Metzl was a staffer on the Clinton NSC and worked for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) as deputy staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

[.....]

FEC records show that Clarke reported no political contributions when he worked in the Clinton administration in the electoral cycles of the 1990s and 2000, when he said he was a Republican.

So here's my take on the claim. All during his time in the Clinton White House he was a registered Republican. During his time in the Bush White House he gets to see the calibre of people that are brought in and is not impressed either by them or the policies they advocate. Two of his colleagues from the National Security Council decide to run for political office and he donates $2,000 to each of them. This is not characteristic of him for he didn't make any political contributions at all for the previous 12 years.

I don't buy that he is a political partisan based simply on the charge that he donated to his friend's campaigns. Is Maria Shriver a Republican because she helped her husband get elected?

I love how you rewrite history, TangoMan, not unlike Clarke. There was a review of intelligence post 9/11 by the Select Intelligence Committee.

I read the series Juan Cole claimed indicated heightened awareness in the Clinton administration to the terrorist threat. Too bad it doesn't actually support his claim. Perhaps Prof. Cole ought to stick to the subject matter in which he is adept, because outside of it he's shown himself to be quite the dissembler.

In summary, the series says this, relevant to Cole's point:

* A terrorist was apprehended by accident by U.S. Customs. Customs had no idea that any terrorists were planning on entering through that route, nor did they have any indication that their perp was anything other than some random drug smuggler:

Johnson, grabbing Noris by the shoulders, led him over to the trunk. At a hefty 240 pounds, Johnson had no trouble maneuvering the slim Noris. They peered in and saw no spare tire. In its place were several green bags that appeared to filled with white powder, as well as four black boxes, two pill bottles and two jars of brown liquid. A drug dealer, perhaps?

* The aforementioned apprehension was so much an accident that an agent escaped blowing himself up (by shaking a bottle of nitroglycerin) either through sheer luck or through lack of skill on the part of the one who cooked up the nitro. But NOT because the agent had any idea what he had:

Johnson took a sample of the white powder from the trunk to test. Was it heroin, speed, cocaine? Negative on each. As he shook the jars of brown liquid, Noris, who could see Johnson from the patrol car, ducked down to the floor.

Within a couple of days, the inspectors would learn that the brown liquid Johnson had shaken was a powerful, highly unstable relative of nitroglycerin that could have blown them all to bits.

Yes, all of the above are quite clearly NOT indicative of

Extra security measures were implemented by US customs agents, leading to the apprehension of an Algerian, Ahmed Ressam, with a trunk full of nitroglycerin, heading for LAX (he wanted to start his journey by ferry from Port Angeles, Washington).

As claimed by Prof. Cole. Good grief, what an utter bumbling idiot.

Got a reference on that Slart?

Sure. It was referenced in the Juan Cole post that apostropher cited to begin with.