This is, quite frankly, a bombshell.
I thought, perhaps, Richard Clarke was merely an opportunist, or a guy who craved attention. But if what Mansoor Ijaz -- who negotiated Sudan's offer to share al Qaeda intelligence with the Clinton administration -- says is true, then we're presented with another possibility: Misdirection.
According to Ijaz:
Irony of ironies: If true, it increasingly appears that it is Clarke, who stood before the panel and blamed Bush, and Gorelick, who stands in judgement within, who appear to be primary "architects" of the many failed policies which culminated in 9/11.
If so, then another possible explanation for Clarke's behavior is that Clarke -- like a magician who sets of a pyrotechnic on the right side of the stage to keep you from looking to the left -- attacked Bush to divert the committee from probing too closely into any question of exactly what occurred before Bush took office, knowing in advance the damage such revelations might have had on his own credibility and career.
For me, this is not about trying to blame people who served in the past -- I'd be sufficiently happy if we learned from what went wrong. But I think it's very important that the American people understand what kind of incentives Mr. Clarke may have to act, write, and testify as he has -- not to mention an accurate assement of Mr. Clarke's alleged prescience and competence.
Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt.
Tim, the thing that disturbs me almost as much as this information (which, by the way, does not surprise me in the least) is that it was the Bush administration that chose to keep this bastard.
Similiarly, they chose to keep Tenet. OK, fine, keep them both until 9/11, perhaps they really weren't aware of the incompetencies of either man, but AFTER? Why weren't they both "asked to resign" forthwith? Why was Tenet still around for Afghanistan, and why were his assurances that WMD were a "slam dunk" not reason enough to fire him after Kelley found narry a spore of Anthrax?
Something is VERY fishy in this entire situation, and I as an American (never mind conservative) want to know what the hell it is! Does the CIA have really filthy dirt on Bush or perhaps his father? Does Clarke? Or are the people we need desperately to rely on for our safety really so stupid as to keep these men in positions of such importance without doing what now appears to be rudimentary research to uncover what incompetent, arrogant, and yes, perhaps even mal-intended men these two really were?!
Every day that Tenet remains as DCI is a day I scratch my head in wonder at GWB. Every day that Bush fumbles around calling Islam a "religion of peace" even in light of what those MONSTERS did to the body of the Spanish police officer this past weekend, I question not only his intelligence, I question his sanity.
My feeling at this point is that neither Bush nor Kerry fully "gets" what needs to be done to keep us safe, and I'm more convinced than ever that supposed "moral clarity" can't make up for the political myopia of this administration. The fact that they seem either unwilling or unable to call their detractors/opponents/enemies on the carpet for the full-scale public humiliation they deserve is more than confusing, it's downright scary.
I pray hard every night that my daughter will live to see a REAL leader emerge to protect this nation from itself. I fear that she may not. One thing is certain, if today's version of America were facing WWII, we would lose. Just imagine if the media of today were reporting the tens of thousands of casualties we suffered at Iwo Jima in a single day! Imagine if Hitler's offers of "compromise" (eerily familiar when compared to UBL's recent offers) were broadcast by every news network to today's anti-war crowd? Can you imagine what could have happened if Hitler tried to sway our elections with blackmail? It's too terrifying (especially as a Jew) to contemplate.
What am i talking about, it's just as terrifying to contemplate (as a Jew OR Christian) today what would happen if the Islmists had their way.
Like I said, I pray for my daughter.
Deb,
Maybe I'm being a bit naive here, but...
Tim, the thing that disturbs me almost as much as this information (which, by the way, does not surprise me in the least) is that it was the Bush administration that chose to keep this bastard.
I can understand them being kept around: Bush promised "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and I see the fact that so many from his cabinet were from the previous administration as being very tangible proof of that.
My guess is they looked at each person as best as they could, and kept those who either were competant (Clarke, seemingly) or who wouldn't do much harm (Minetta).
Sadly, these are all the same individuals (O'Neil, Clarke) who have burned him. If Bush can be faulted here, it was for saying "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and then keeping that promise.
I have this theory that governments eventually reflect the quality of the people. That Bush was burned in such a way says something -- not just about the people he kept on -- but about us, the people, who apparently are quite ready to accept unproven allegations as fact.
Why was Tenet still around for Afghanistan, and why were his assurances that WMD were a "slam dunk" not reason enough to fire him after Kelley found narry a spore of Anthrax?
I don't know why Bush didn't ask for Tenet's head after the WMD -- I've wondered that myself. It may be a failing of his. Or there may be a change after the election, if Bush wins.
Or there may be some kind of blackmail going on. (I'm not dabbling in dark conspiracy theories... just trying to cover all the possibilities.)
Similiarly, they chose to keep Tenet. OK, fine, keep them both until 9/11, perhaps they really weren't aware of the incompetencies of either man, but AFTER? Why weren't they both "asked to resign" forthwith? ...
I agree they probably weren't aware of Clarke's failings. And Tenet may not be incompetant -- he may simply have been underfunded, and oversure on this point. Remember: Mosad, MI-6 etc. all made the same mistakes.
Regarding some, it might have been a safer move to keep them on the payrolls but "not in the loop", before the election, if you get my drift.
Fired people tend to write books.
Does the CIA have really filthy dirt on Bush or perhaps his father?
Heck, as the Clarke and O'Neil story (and the Woodward stuff this week) prove, you don't actually even need real dirt. A mere unsourced allegation somebody didn't know something before someone else did -- or something like that -- is enough to make a lot of people today scream "Bush is eeeevil!"
In terms of this fake-dirt damage, anyone with a CIA access badge and a penchant for tall tales would be enough to alter the election outcome.
Next, call me a rube, but I'm still not convinced there wasn't WMD. We gave Saddam six month's notice to clean it up. If Saddam knew he might go, what better black eye could he give Bush, his most hated foe?
And you heard the news from Jordan, right? Chemicals found in some bomb which are traceable to -- you guessed it -- Syria.
In short, the CIA may have been right about WMD. It's not something I'd be my life on, but it's still a distinct possibility.
Last, just to be realistic, as Jane Galt said, intelligence sucks. And it does, especially without enough human intelligence -- which may be a factor of many things, including poor multilingual education here in the US and low funding from Congress (pronounced "Kerry"). For perspective, we also missed the fall of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany.
We need more Arabic speakers whose loyalties are not compromised.
Every day that Bush fumbles around calling Islam a "religion of peace"...
I've complained about this too, but...
(Good heavens, what am I, and administration apologist? No -- I'm just presenting all the possibilities, the ones I consider myself.)
I think Bush may know better, privately, but feel he can't allow the charge his enemies are just waiting to level against him -- that this is a "Chrsitian holy war" or "Crusade" -- to stick.
And frankly, I think it's worked: Things I hear out of the mideast seem to indicate the man on the street (a) has increasing respect for the US, and (b) doesn't think Bush is in a holy war.
Unless we want to bring about a massive confrontation, that last point is probably important.
I pray hard every night that my daughter will live to see a REAL leader emerge to protect this nation from itself. I fear that she may not.
At this point, I'd say we're not good enough for one. Look at us: GWB stands up and merely says "axis of evil", and names a few countries which there ought to be no dispute about (North Korea, for heaven's sake) and a good chunk of the population is ready to think GWB is not the kind of man they want.
Why?
(This is not directed at you, or anyone else, specificly...)
I increasingly believe this comes out of our private lives. We don't want to be judged in moralistic terms. We want to consume porn and hear that that's okay. We're men who want to have sex with a dozen guys this weekend and hear that's okay. We are women who wants to leave our husband when we get tired of it, and hear that's okay. We have become a nation who cheats on our tests and homework, but we still want to think everyone is okay all the time.
I'm not saying someone needs to get up and issue a hearty condemnation of all of the above. And I'm a firm believer in tolerance through differences.
I'm just saying the fact we do these things, increasingly, and the fact that we still feel some guilt about them means that we're averse to anyone who can call a spade a spade. We're sooo bloody afraid of judgementalism.
(John Jay Ray -- an atheist, mind you -- often argues that liberalism arises from a fear that God might exist. And I can see his point.)
Because we fear judgements, a man (or woman) who makes them, as are needed, and is honest about that, could not rise to office here.
And our own failings mean we expect more than ever from government. Look, I expect that some of us will die from terrorists. And I don't think it means heads should roll each time -- it's the price we pay for freedom. Government is not the almighty, but, lacking a notion of such, we sometimes expect it to fill the gaps.
Who's going to stand up and say Islam is not a religion of peace? A Jew or Christian? How far is that going to get them? How intolerant! Or at least: Poor strategy! Fundamentalist! Agent of Zionism! Blah, blah, blah...
Why am I bringing up all this moral crap? What am I, an intemperate judgemental prude?
No. But, I am increasingly convinced that what we do in our collective private lives has a real impact on our public policy. During the Clinton administration, I distinctly remember a number of people admitting that they liked Clinton because he was "like them". They too would bed the secretary if she was hot enough and available. And that tendency, wrote large, selected a man who made the kinds of poor judgements Clinton did -- in other non-bimbo areas. And, as you rightly point out a leader who feels guilty, or has something to hide, is one who is very blackmailable.
Also read Who Killed Childhood? by Theodore Dalrymple for another graphic illustration of the interplay between private and public behavior. Sure, it's about a child-killer, but the same mechanism can work in many areas of public policy.
I don't want it to make you worry for your daughter -- just drive home the point there's a real connection between private and public morality.
Can you imagine what could have happened if Hitler tried to sway our elections with blackmail?
Currently, we've got a huge group of people promising they'd vote for any Democrat, "anyone but Bush". It has often occurred to me that you could shave off Hitler's little moustache, teach him english, give his hair some highlights, tell him to shut up about race, run him as a Democrat, and, true to their word, a huge chunk of the population would cast their ballot for him.
He was, after all, a leftist.
It's too terrifying (especially as a Jew) to contemplate. What am i talking about, it's just as terrifying to contemplate (as a Jew OR Christian) today what would happen if the Islmists had their way.
Islam is a danger, yes. You and I would do better than the rest of the culture, though, as "People of the Book" -- in theory anyway.
But totalitarianism is probably the more real threat to and from Europe -- though it's one I expect will co-opt Islamist sentiments.
And I'm not sure what's going to happen here, but things are getting mighty intolerant here as well.
In this epoch, Jews and Christians both have their heads on the chopping block when the revolution comes. Not right away, perhaps, but always eventually. Hitler mostly killed Jews, but he also torched quite a few "Christian troublemakers" (Bonhoffer, Ten Boom's family, etc.) who acted on their conscience -- though, regretably, these were far fewer in number. The situation was otherwise in the French Revolution (burned quite a few priests and nuns) the USSR, China, the millions killed in Sudan, etc.
Study Wiemarr Germany. Study Rome under the Caesars. Study Chinese history. Contemporary conditions are increasingly similar.
The hatin's just begun.
Tim, the thing that disturbs me almost as much as this information (which, by the way, does not surprise me in the least) is that it was the Bush administration that chose to keep this bastard.
Similiarly, they chose to keep Tenet. OK, fine, keep them both until 9/11, perhaps they really weren't aware of the incompetencies of either man, but AFTER? Why weren't they both "asked to resign" forthwith? Why was Tenet still around for Afghanistan, and why were his assurances that WMD were a "slam dunk" not reason enough to fire him after Kelley found narry a spore of Anthrax?
Something is VERY fishy in this entire situation, and I as an American (never mind conservative) want to know what the hell it is! Does the CIA have really filthy dirt on Bush or perhaps his father? Does Clarke? Or are the people we need desperately to rely on for our safety really so stupid as to keep these men in positions of such importance without doing what now appears to be rudimentary research to uncover what incompetent, arrogant, and yes, perhaps even mal-intended men these two really were?!
Every day that Tenet remains as DCI is a day I scratch my head in wonder at GWB. Every day that Bush fumbles around calling Islam a "religion of peace" even in light of what those MONSTERS did to the body of the Spanish police officer this past weekend, I question not only his intelligence, I question his sanity.
My feeling at this point is that neither Bush nor Kerry fully "gets" what needs to be done to keep us safe, and I'm more convinced than ever that supposed "moral clarity" can't make up for the political myopia of this administration. The fact that they seem either unwilling or unable to call their detractors/opponents/enemies on the carpet for the full-scale public humiliation they deserve is more than confusing, it's downright scary.
I pray hard every night that my daughter will live to see a REAL leader emerge to protect this nation from itself. I fear that she may not. One thing is certain, if today's version of America were facing WWII, we would lose. Just imagine if the media of today were reporting the tens of thousands of casualties we suffered at Iwo Jima in a single day! Imagine if Hitler's offers of "compromise" (eerily familiar when compared to UBL's recent offers) were broadcast by every news network to today's anti-war crowd? Can you imagine what could have happened if Hitler tried to sway our elections with blackmail? It's too terrifying (especially as a Jew) to contemplate.
What am i talking about, it's just as terrifying to contemplate (as a Jew OR Christian) today what would happen if the Islmists had their way.
Like I said, I pray for my daughter.
Posted by: Deb on April 19, 2004 10:56 PM