Go read Daniel Drezner on Richard Clarke, one of the most sensible commentaries on the subject that I’ve seen. Two key quotes:
So, does Clarke have a personal incentive to stick it to this administration? Absolutely. Does he know what he’s talking about? Absolutely. Can what he says can be ignored? Absolutely not.
and
55 years ago, George Kennan and Paul Nitze had different positions on how to wage a containment policy, with Nitze taking a much more aggressive posture in NSC-68 than Kennan did in “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.” I’m not sure that it’s ever been decided which position was right. The same will likely be true of current debates.
Update: The Washington Post has a good editorial on this as well. Here’s a key quote…
Mr. Clarke describes Mr. Bush’s questions about a possible Iraqi role on the day after the Sept. 11 attacks as irrational; in fact, they were entirely reasonable. Iraq was an indisputable threat when Mr. Bush took office — one, like al Qaeda, that the Clinton administration had aptly described but failed to counter. Moreover, within days of asking those questions, Mr. Bush put Saddam Hussein on a back burner and ordered a U.S. military operation against al Qaeda’s base in Afghanistan — a tough decision that Mr. Clarke wrongly takes for granted.
What the former czar really objects to is the president’s move, some six months later, to expand the war on terrorism to Iraq and other rogue states capable of supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Clarke, like Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and some others in the Democratic Party, argue for a narrower war, focused on al Qaeda. We disagree with that view, but it represents a legitimate alternative to Bush administration policy. Does Mr. Kerry support it? There — more than in the what-ifs about decisions made before Sept. 11 — lie the makings of an important debate.
What they said.
Question: what position in a Kerry administration does Clarke want?
Tom- Press Secretary- he can obviously say two things contradicting each other and keep a streight face.
+++++++++++++
The Wapo citation is another example of how Wapo is becoming the paper of record for US events. They actually got the questions right on this one, and it will be interesting to see how their discriminant is used in the upcoming debates.
None. He’s been around long enough to know Kerry is not a likely winner. He’s wrangling for a position on the Clinton ’08 foreign policy team.
This committee is very interesting and entertaining for wonks. For those inside the virtual beltway, it is a good reminder of what happened on 9/11 and that how well they do their jobs is more important than how their career progresses. It is too bad that it is not sending the message that if they do their job poorly, their career ends.
And it beats purges.
One way or another Clarke is an accomplished liar
Here’s a background breifing he gave in August 2002.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
Either he was lying to several reporters on background then, or he is completely full of crap now.
If he just disagreed that Iraq is part of the wider war on terror, he could easily have made his case. As Wapo said, its a legitimate point of view, wrong also in my opinion but at least its debatable.
His 60 minutes interview (and the book previews so far) are just beneath pathetic and has totally shot all the credibility he spent decades building through diligent counter terrorism effots.
it looks like a pretty tragic selling-out and/or just plain bitter.
Wow. Drezner does yeoman’s work trying to put lipstick on the pig, but in the end it still doesn’t look good in the swim suit.
The point is that the administration had priorities. They pretty much had everyone in awe of their ability to swiftly and efficiently deal with the issues they saw as important.
Which is pretty telling. Tax cuts, ABM and Iraq were their obsession.
Not protecting the American public from its most dangerous enemies.
Which begs the question why the A. L. thinks that the Bush administration has a foreign policy that beats the democrats. Clearly, it wasn’t a priority before 9/11. It wasn’t a priority after Afghanistan – proving a conspriacy theory regarding Iraq was the priority.
I personally find it baffling that someone(s) who think that this is the biggest priority for American politicians to have thinks that these guys have a clue or actually care about these things beyond what their political impact will have.
Hal –
How about this, *currently quoted by* that well-known Bush apologist, Kevin Drum?
A.L.
“Authorized, not appropriated” Clarke said, in testimony.
Clarke is a master of detail, and he swatted that challenge easily.
He has his interpretations, and they may not be correct, but the Bush Administration’s overheated attempts to destroy his reputation makes them look slimey.
They accuse Clarke of making up charges to sell his book. As I see it, they place their own careers ahead of their country’s safety.
What evidence does the WaPo have (or the hawks on this blog) that Clarke is wrong in taking the military operation against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for granted. The only alternative I have heard from anyone in authority was to bomb Iraq, because it had easier targets, and this idea comes from Rumsfeld. Was there any opposition from the Democratic Party? One representative in Congress. A few masochistic and, yes, America-hating leftist fringies. (I recall Richard Falk came out in favor of the war, to give you a sense of how much support it had even in the American far left.)
The opinions of Barbara Lee and International ANSWER are simply irrelevant. There are commenters here who think Gore or Kerry would have recited the shahade and introduced Sharia law here, but they’re just nuts. The simple fact is that Bush had unlimited credit with the American people for a war on Al Qaeda’s bases and after a few months he chose to spend it in Iraq instead.
How to put this that you haven’t heard a million times before and ignored, Andrew?
Ah well, let’s try the simplest way: This is not just a war on Al Qaeda. A war only against Al Qaeda would only address the latest symptom, not the disease. This is a war on terrorist groups and their state sponsors, even if Al Qaeda isn’t directly involved with the particular state. The reason we didn’t attack (insert diversion X here) first/also/yet is that we’re taking it one step at a time. The reason we don’t attack all such simultaneously is because we’re using a variety of methods, most of which will never see the light of day until 30 or 100 years after they succeed, if they succeed.
To reiterate – this is not just a war on Al Qaeda, and a war just against Al Qaeda wouldn’t have been a long term solution.
Drezner writes:
” Iraq was an indisputable threat when Mr. Bush took office — one, like al Qaeda, that the Clinton administration had aptly described but failed to counter.”
Well, there was that little matter of the millenium plot being foiled, but why let inopportune facts get in the way of some opportunistic Clinton-bashing? Especially when it allows you to avoid answering the vital question: “To whom, exactly, was Iraq a threat in January, 2001?”
Drezner continues:
“What the former czar really objects to is the president’s move, some six months later, to expand the war on terrorism to Iraq and other rogue states capable of supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. ”
Not quite.
If I read Clarke correctly, he’s saying that from the get go invading Iraq could never be construed as part of an effective “war on terror.” Instead the invasion was simply part of The War On Evil People George W. Really Really Hates. And the 911 attacks gave the Bushites a convenient justification to fight a battle in that war. (BTW, Wolfowitz came close to admitting something close to that, when he said that the WMD ploy was merely a convenient ruse)
Rational people, however, realize that there has to be a legitimate reason that directly impacts US interests for a president to order American troops to die for their country. Regarding Iraq, there was absolutely none, especially if the goal was to confront terrorism.
Nevertheless, American troops have died for their country (not that Bush has bothered to attend any funerals for them and he makes joke videos about looking for those lost WMD).
Another point Clarke makes:
To invade an Arab country, kill/capture its leaders, and convert them to Christianity* is to play right into the extreme Islamists’ most paranoid recruitment tactics.
In short, Clarke thinks Bush has been acting like bin Laden’s poodle, and that Bush is so clueless, he doesn’t even know it.
Clarke’s 100% right.
(* Please, let’s not have a riposte that Franklin Graham’s God Squad in Iraq isn’t operating on the behest/tacit approval of the Bush adminstration. And even if you’re that gullible, just try convincing all those Iraqi infidels they’re “introducing to Christ” that Graham’s patsies are anything BUT US agents.
In case I’m not being totally clear about this: I have zero respect for evangelicals in Iraq. If you think that means I’m “anti-Christian,” well…I really don’t want to embarass anyone by proving them spectacularly wrong, so let’s not go there.)
Correction:
Change “Drezner” to “WaPo” in my previous comment.