Richard Clarcke - Public Servant or Political Opportunist?

[Makalakumu]

I was just wondering if anyone had listened to the 911 commission hearings on NPR. I heard Richard Clarcke testify. His testimony was very dangerous to the Bush administration - especially if the Republicans are going to run on National Security. Mr. Clarcke has also been interviewed on various news organizations and he is publishing a book whose content describes the Bush Administration as "doing nothing about terrorism when clear warnings were given." So, what do you think? Is Richard Clarcke a dedicated public servent blowing the whistle or is he just another political scavenger trying to make a buck off of a scandal.

In my opinion, the fact that the Republicans have countered with a series of ad hominem attacks and have said very little about the content speaks volumes about how damaging the material Richard Clarcke has presented is to the Bush administration. I'm not sure I can anwer my own question yet, though. Maybe when a few more people jump in with some information...

upnorthkyosa

 

[someguy]

I don't really know much about this. Is Richard Clarcke a Dem or a Rep?

I doubt he would mind making money of the book after all he did poublish a book not go out and talk about it. There could be a reason to not go out and talk about it and write a book instead other than money I just can't really think of it.

 

[CanuckMA]

He has worked an expert on terrorism for Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. It is interesting to note that he had direct access to the National Security Advisor in every administration except Bush Jr.

 

[Touch Of Death]

He certainly had Condalisa Rice(sp) contradicting herself at every turn. That alone was worth it all for me. Of course I think the whole administration should be dismantled for outoing CIA agents. Imagine how many people have been executed for having dealings with that agent in their own countries. You'll notice they never did find the guy that snuck that info out to the media. I don't suppose they are looking very hard either.
Sean

 

[Makalakumu]

He certainly had Condalisa Rice(sp) contradicting herself at every turn. That alone was worth it all for me. Of course I think the whole administration should be dismantled for outoing CIA agents. Imagine how many people have been executed for having dealings with that agent in their own countries. You'll notice they never did find the guy that snuck that info out to the media. I don't suppose they are looking very hard either.
Sean

Notice too, how quiet the media has been about it. Makes you wonder who got strongarmed now...

 

[michaeledward]

I don't really know much about this. Is Richard Clarcke a Dem or a Rep?

In the year 2000, Clarke was registred in the Republican part. He has admitted that he voted for Gore in 2000.

There is very little material in 'Against All Enemies', that has not been available to the curious mind prior to its publication. It seems that at every turn, more books written over the last two years are being referenced and compared to Clarke's.

I think the 'media' is doing a pretty good job about discussing the contradictions between Clarke's statements, and what the Administration is putting forth. Look for articles at www.washingtonpost.com.

It has been fun comparing the interview shows ... Rice on the Sunday news programs, Clarke on Hardball, 60 Minutes, Charlie Rose (I think).

I am very much looking forward to Dr. Rice's testimony next Thursday.

 

[someguy]

I'd wager he wouldn't mind Bushh out of office.
The timing is convenient.

 

[Cruentus]

I'd think that it would be quite hasty to say that Clarke is an opportunist when he has put in over 30 years of service through both democrate and republican administrations with out any concrete proof to support that he is an opportunist. I have yet to see a strong case to support the idea yet.

I think that the guy is just doing what he thinks is the right thing to do.

 

[Ender]

The terrosists attacks on the WTC the first time, the second time, the attacks on the USS Cole, and the various attacks on US embassies all happened under HIS watch. He's an author who's trying sell his book and it's convenient his book came out so quick. He, of all people, should have done something. He is trying to cover his own *** and has lost any credibility.

 

[MisterMike]

It seems the blame game is about the last step in this whole process. First we were attacked and we joined togther to help one another. Then we found out who did it and we stomped their behind. Then we all stood around and asked "Why do they hate us"...OK OK..some of us did..lol.. Now we are asking, how could have we prevented this and point the finger at who's watch it all came under. Now we have a memo which proves nothing about anyone's failure. I wonder though, what memo's were going around the month's prior about Bin Laden and his gang a few months before Clinton had him in his grasp from Saudi Arabia. Could we dig up those as well???

 

[Cruentus]

The arguement that an event occured under "his watch" doesn't damage his credability. Some of the anti-bush crowd are trying to use that arguement against bush, that Sept. 11 happened on his and his administrations watch so he must of been a bad president. This arguement doesn't work in either case.

Now, if gross negligence is proven, or a conflict of interest, THEN we can say that someone failed to do their job. This would damage credability, and provide cause for someone to defend themselves. So far, not only has negligence nor conflict of interest not been proven against Clarke, but many accounts (including the Bush administration) has proven that he has done his job.

The jury is still out on the administration as to whether or not they demonstrated gross negligence, or whether or not conflicts of interest has prevented them from doing their jobs.

The Jury is NOT out on Clarke, however. Evidence shows that in his 30 years of service, he has done his job to the best of his ability.

And, as to his book, if he was an opportunist, he could have written a book on many different controversial things over the past 30 years. After septembet 11th, if he wrote a book within the year it would have sold much better then now. However, he choose now to write a book.

Why? Is it money? For his position I think you'll find that he has been compensated quite well, and that book sales aren't a nessecity for him. When you go down the line and list of arguements as to why he'd come out and say what he has, the most logical conclusion you are left with is the conclusion that Clarke truely disagrees with the Bush Administration, and truely believes that things could have and should have been handled differently.

What Clarke Believes may or may not be true, but I can't see any other motive beyond feeling a duty to tell the public what he feels is true. And to try to argue this for the sake of an attempt at ruining his credability because what he says doesn't fit YOUR world view isn't going to change the facts that are on the table.

 

[michaeledward]

I think seeing all the Presidential Daily Briefings about al Qaeda would be wonderful.

The picture in my head right now is not Clinton, or Clarke, or Rumsfeld, or Rice, or Albright, or Tenet. The picture I have is President Bush sitting in a classroom full of second graders, just having been told a second airplane struck the World Trade Center in New York, just 36 days after seeing a memo stating 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US' and 'patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York'.

And how long did the President sit in the classroom after being told of the second plane crash? The president spends 10 minutes with second graders after learning of the second plane crash.

Try to put context around this fact. - Mike

 

[Cruentus]

It seems the blame game is about the last step in this whole process. First we were attacked and we joined togther to help one another. Then we found out who did it and we stomped their behind. Then we all stood around and asked "Why do they hate us"...OK OK..some of us did..lol.. Now we are asking, how could have we prevented this and point the finger at who's watch it all came under.

I agree with you here; that the blame game is part of the process, right or wrong.

This doesn't change the fact that there may have been negligence and conflict of interest for many of those whose watch this was under, and it does warrent investigation, for any and all parties involved. But, its a good thing that we did some heavy investigation on that blow job that Clinton recieved to rule out any possibility that Monica was an afgan spy infiltrating the white house for the purpose of ramming planes down our buildings!

On a personal note, I think that the problem is structural in nature, and not partisen, and lies in how we have handles foriegn policy going back as far as WWII. I think that the administration has made mistakes, but I don't think the the structural problems are all their fault.

I do feel some changes need to be made accross the board.

 

[michaeledward]

. . . I wonder though, what memo's were going around the month's prior about Bin Laden and his gang a few months before Clinton had him in his grasp from Saudi Arabia. Could we dig up those as well???

I mentioned that I am in favor of seeing all of the PDB's concerning al Qaeda. I may be mistaken, but I believe it is the Bush Administration that is currently with-holding the Clinton Adminstrations PDB's from public scrutiny and the entire independent 911 commission. As I understand it, only two members of the commission were allowed to review the PDB's, and their notes had to be vetted by the White House prior to reporting back to the full commission.