You don't have to have an acute sense of smell to get a whiff of the stench coming out of Washington these days. Leaving aside the mud slinging going on in campaign ads, why don't we focus on the recent stir surrounding the publishing of Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened. Controversy has been in abundance since Clarke's interview on 60 Minutes, last Sunday.
Richard Clarke has been a White House security advisor through four administrations prior to stepping down from his position as cyber-terrorism advisor with the current Bush administration last year. His book, which has only recently made it to publication, discussed the events that occurred in the White House before and after September 11th. Though I have not read the book, it is reported to paint a pretty grim picture of various Bush staff, and the President himself. Tackling not only the intelligence debacle that was the terrorist attack of September 11th, but the strong arm tactics used to carry out a hidden agenda, Clarke impugns the intentions and the hidden agenda of the Bush administration during a time warranting increased vigilance, and the retaliatory action in the wake of the attacks.
Clarke scolds the Bush administration's lack of concern with terrorism, specifically Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda, preceding 9/11. According to Clarke, the increase of intelligence chatter (reported to the President by George Tennant - Director CIA) in the weeks before September 11th was met with little to no response from the white house. The chatter in question was similar to the variety found during the Clinton administration prior to the thwarting of an Al-Queda attempt to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. With close to 20 years of experience in the anti-terror field, Clarke points out the blatant and foolish lack of concern the Bush Administration had for terrorism prior to 9/11.
As a member of the Bush Admin., Clarke was included in various White House meetings. Following the attacks, Clarke describes an administration poised to retaliate against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. According to Clarke, in spite of the intelligence community's almost universal assertion that the attacks were perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, Bush officials including Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice, were insistent that an Iraqi connection be sought out. It would seem the intelligence community prevailed, and the decision to go after Al-Qaeda was eventually cemented, but it's no secret that 9/11 was and still is used as a justification for military action beyond Afghanistan. Intelligence agencies around the globe have yet to find any information linking Osama Bin Laden with Saddam Hussein, and you're kidding yourself if you think 9/11 was not used as a justification for the war.
Having resigned from his position in the Bush Administration around the time of our insertion into Iraq, Clarke is now on a mission to explain to the American people the truth about how the administration dealt with September 11th, and the means by which it used this national tragedy to peddle its agenda with Iraq. As you can imagine, Bush officials have not responded in kind. The Administration is chalking up Clarke's accusations as an attempt to discredit a former employer to which Clarke is still embittered. In the pattern of drawing loose connections, they are drawing into question the timing of Clarke's press, insisting that because of his (Clarke's) relations with John Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers, Americans shouldn't consider his words as anything but partisan lies aimed at paving the road for Kerry in the election. They also insist that his statements are aimed purely at stirring up controversy in the hope of boosting sales of his book. Bushys are essentially looking to push this logic --- Richard Clarke = Opportunistic, partisan, LIAR!
My take...
Having been involved in politics for close to 20 years, I'm not foolish enough to take Clarke's words as absolute truths. I do however; know enough to consider them in conjunction with a notoriously deceptive administration. I agree with the Bushys in that I believe Clarke has an agenda, which unlike the administration, he states plainly. The timing of Clarke's book, along with the press is aimed purely at ruining Bush's chances at re-election. Wouldn't it follow that a man willing to quit his job over the corruption in the administration would want to do everything in his power to remove those people from power?
It's also worth pointing out that this is all coming to a head with the 9/11 investigations as an appropriate backdrop. Clarke and other Bush officials have testified, but national security advisor Condi Rice has flat out refused to testify before the committee, invoking executive privilege. I don't mean to draw conclusions, but that smells funny to me. I can't say I blame her, she's got her hands full speaking to everyone but the committee appearing on nearly every national morning news broadcast earlier this week, following the Clarke 60 Minutes interview. Damage control?
Clarke has more than likely embellished portions of his story to attract attention, but this does not discredit his accounts completely, as the Bush supporters suggest. Nor do I think Bushys have any business accusing anyone of overstating the truth. Need I remind anyone of the elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the comprehensive Nuclear (pronounced NUKYULER) weapons program we were told about in Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address? Incoherencies pointed out in Clarke's statements sound more like this...
"In one interview Clarke says George Bush demanded, in a very intimidating way, that he seek out a connection between the attacks and Iraq, and in another he says how Bush pointed a finger in his face telling him to find the 9/11 and Iraq connection"
Bush supporters would insist that the difference between those two statements demonstrates the cloudiness of Clark's recollection of events. Theatrics aside, both statements say the same thing, that Bush told Clarke to find the non-existent connection between 9/11 and Iraq. What do you know, I just fashioned another means of saying the SAME THING. Do you use the same exact words each time YOU tell a story?... I think not. I suppose they're (the Bush Admin) just a little bitter about having to get their stories straight lately, they resent anyone who can think for themselves. If anyone caught "The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart" on Wednesday, you would have seen the montage of White House press statements demonstrating the level of coordination when it came to a canned media response to Clarke.
To Sum Up ... How about A Little Yes/No:
Does the Bush Administration Lie?: YES
Does Richard Clarke Lie?: YES
Does the Bush Administration have more to loose than Richard Clarke has to gain?: YES
Does what is implied in the previous question make the Bush Administration more likely to quell accusations with lies?: YES
Does it make sense that an already well-off 20 year public servant would fabricate lies as an act of retribution against a former employer?: NO
Does Condoleezza Rice's refusal to testify in the 9/11 investigation indicated she has something to hide?: YES
Is Richard Clarke trying to remove George W. Bush from the White House?: YES
Is Richard Clarke misleading the American People when it comes to his intentions?: NO
Is George W. Bush misleading the American People when it comes to his intentions?: YES
Should an Administration with such a penchant for lying, be trusted to tell the truth under oath?: NO
Did the Bush Administration fabricate a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda in order to sell their war to the American people?: YES
Should the words of Richard Clarke have any effect on my image of our President: YES
That's about all I have for today kids... despite the election being 8 months away, there is no shortage of news stirring my desire to comment.
I have no love for Clinton... but consider THIS...
If the obvious political agenda was apparent and insulting enough, please allow me to point out the hypocrisy for you. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve more than likely had to watch one of Bush’s colorful and somewhat nauseating (ok maybe that’s just me) reelection ads on television. It would appear that Bush isn’t bound to the same “honor” and “privacy” code as the rest of us. One Bush ad titled Safer, Stronger features a video montage in which firefighters can be seen carrying the flag covered body of a fallen comrade from the World Trade Center rubble. The use of this video footage does not only show what little respect Bush himself has for the rules he is forcing on others, but shows how tasteless and discourteous he is willing to be to win a second term. In this case, casting tragic events in certain lights for purely political gain, and using imagery that he says violates privacy to tug on the heart strings of potential voters.
