There has been some incredible commentary regarding Richard Clarke’s interrogation before the 9/11 Commission. Personally, I was impressed with Clarke for these things:
- He started off his comments by apologizing to the victim’s families.
- His remarks did not come across as political–he did not solely place blame on Bush or his administration.
- His answers seemed complete, meaningful–in other words, coherent, unlike the manner of obfuscation we usually here from Rumsfield, Rice, McClellan, etc. when they are interviewed.
- He kept his ground even when two of the interrogators excoriated him regarding his integrity.
Though the White House has tried to spin Clarke as an angry, disloyal government official eager to win interest for his upcoming book, Against All Enemies, Clarke’s testimony has already become the hallmark of this investigation. He won the hearts of the victim’s families and that feat alone is the talk of America.
And the Bushies, by having painted Clarke the way they did, have come up way short in the eyes many. Combined with Clarke’s speech today and the contents of his book, they are appearing more and more like delusional wingnuts who have no practical know-how or skill running a country. The evidence for this is fast becoming obvious.
Here are some excellent reads from today’s reading list regarding Clarke. I am including some noteworthy paragraphs from each one for your review. I insist, however, that you go out and read them all.
Richard Clarke Kos the Bushies – Fred Kaplan’s masterfully written commentary of Clarke’s interrogation.
Richard Clarke made his much-anticipated appearance before the 9/11 commission this afternoon and, right out of the box, delivered a stunning blow to the Bush administration-the political equivalent of a first-round knockout.
The blow was so stunning, it took a while to realize that it was a blow. Clarke thanked the members for holding the hearings, saying they finally provided him "a forum where I can apologize" to the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones. He continued, addressing those relatives, many of whom were sitting in the hearing room:
Your government failed you … and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask … for your understanding and for your forgiveness.
End of statement. Applause. KO.
A New Folk Hero – Robert Dreyfuss, printed at TomPaine.com
John F. Lehman, the former secretary of the Navy, probably wishes he hadn't asked Richard Clarke about Iraq today. By doing so, he helped Clarke emerge as a new folk hero. Lehman also increased the chances that historians will view Clarke's devastating critique of Bush's terrorism and Iraq agenda as the beginning of the end of the Bush administration.
The forum for all this was Richard Clarke's testimony in front of the bipartisan commission investigating terrorism and September 11. Clarke, of course, is the giant-killer and tell-all author whose recent release, Against All Enemies, blew the roof off of President Bush's claim to be a war president.
Bush’s Best Punch Falls Short – LiberalOasis
So the Bushies may have dinged Clarke (and note that some media assessments say they didn’t).
But by going after the messenger far more than the message, and running up against a deft messenger, the substance of Clarke’s charges remain standing, if not amplified.
And by repeatedly going below the belt and chronically engaging in cheap spin, the negative image of a White House that plays nasty has been furthered as well.
When that’s the result of your best move of the week, it’s not a good week.
Assessing the Blame for 9/11 – The New York Times Feature Editorial
The seminal moment of this week's hearings on 9/11 surely came yesterday when Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief in the Bush and Clinton administrations, opened his testimony by apologizing to the families whose loved ones died in the terror attacks. The government, Mr. Clarke said, had failed them, "and I failed you." He added, "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed." It suddenly seemed that after the billions of words uttered about that terrible day, Mr. Clarke had found the ones that still needed saying.
The two days of hearings by the commission investigating the attacks have been invaluable in helping the American people better understand the chain of miscommunications, wrong guesses and misplaced priorities that left the nation so poorly defended against the terrorists. Mr. Clarke, by accepting responsibility, offered the American people the freedom to hold their leaders accountable for an event most had come to see as an unstoppable bolt from the blue.
Bush’s War Against Richard Clarke – Sidney Blumenthal’s article printed by Salon
Bush's information was more than enough for him to have put the government on high alert, as was done around the planned al_Qaida millennium bombings, which were thwarted by the commitment of President Clinton and his team to giving terrorism the very highest priority through daily presidential meetings with the most senior national security officials. That process was dissolved by Bush and Rice and pointedly not reconstituted even during the rising level of chatter indicating an imminent attack in the weeks before 9/11.
The administration's furious response to Clarke only underscores his book. Rice is vague, forgetful and dissembling. Cheney is belligerent, certain and bluffing. In Clarke's book, as in the memoirs of other Bush administration officials, former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and former domestic policy aide John DiIulio, Bush is disengaged, incurious, manipulated by those in the closed circle around him, and he adopts ill_conceived strategies that he has played little or no part in preparing. Bush is the Oz behind the curtain, but unlike the wizard the special effects are performed by others. Especially on terrorism and 9/11, his White House is at "battle stations" to prevent the curtain from being pulled open .
Condoleezza Rice’s Bad Week – Martin Sieff’s article printed by Salon.com
Rice had neither academic background nor serious policy experience in dealing with the Middle East, terror groups or extreme Islam. She was the top national security official on watch for eight months before 9/11. As Clarke has made clear, that should have been ample time for her to ratchet up the national government's level of alert and efficiency against the well_documented threat about which she had been exhaustively and presciently warned. She did no such thing. Instead, she has used her first_rate forensic and diplomatic skills only to obfuscate, excuse and sidestep to protect Bush and maintain her own perfect record. In the year and a half since 9/11 Rice has compliantly served the personal obsession of the president and the neocon clique running the Pentagon to rush to war in Iraq.
Her unimpeded rise is especially remarkable because Rice's actual record as national security advisor has been, to say the least, spotty and controversial.
Indeed, the record of her failures and coverups is deep and long. Arguably, one has to go back to McGeorge Bundy and the Vietnam War to find a national security advisor with one half as bad a record. Clarke's new book, "Against All Enemies," adds further documentation to the record that Rice was blasé and unconcerned about the al_Qaida terrorist threat before 9/11. She received serious warnings about it, as Clarke has documented, from the outgoing Clinton administration and from Clarke personally. But she did not take them seriously and took no action to maintain the level of priority, let alone upgrade it.
7:42:09 PM  | |
|
|
