They are certainly interesting and they have the administration on the defense...I do not know what to make of it. I was unable to watch his interview on 60 minutes. Did anyone out there catch it. What do you think?
What he said on 60 Minutes is not entirely consistent with his comments in August, 2002.
I agree, they are not consistent. He was clearly being told by his boss, Condoleeza Rice, to make up a pro-Bush spin in August '02.
In politics, what someone says as part of their job in creating positive spin is NEVER to be taken completely seriously. Everyone who has ever worked for ANY administration has been told to put a pro-administration spin on what they do in their official job capacity.
This guy is a real gem. I read a transcript of his testimony to Congress given while Billy Jeff was still President. He said things like "No, we can't formulate a real strategy because. . ."
and "it's silly to think we could even. . ." Now he says "Oh,
we had all this, and we gave it to Bush. . ."
I heard a tape of a speech given by Condi Rice wherein she talked about Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda quite knowledgeably months before Clarke says "I could see by her eyes she never heard of him before. . ."
His best friend is on John Kerry's campaign and he was essentially fired. Figure his motivation. Not to mention the book deal and the movie. . .
Sorry, guys. Clarke has said explicitly that he would not accept a position in a Kerry administration. He's been a civil servant for 30 years, which means that he'd have spent about 12 of them working for Democrats and 18 in Republican administrations.
The word is leaking out that the Bush administration did nothing until September 11. The most notable instance of this is the fact that the attorney general had decided to cut 2/3 of the FBI's counter-terrorism budget on September 10, 2001. Again, it's all documented.
I hate to write this, as a disgusted life-long Republican who voted for Reagan and both Bushes, but I can't do it again.
The truth is a powerful thing
First, he made recommendations to Condoleeza Rice that were ignored, because of the heavy Iraq myopia of the administration. Then, because he was making a pain-in-the-ass of himself as a result, he was demoted. Then 9/11 happened. Then he got sick and tired of writing fictitious Pro-Bush spin on the the war on Terrorism, so he quit, so that he could tell the his perception of the truth about how the drive to change regimes in Iraq colored all the pre-9/11 anti-terror analysis.
Look, any idiot can tell that you have TWO biased views about what went on in the White House pre-9/11, and the truth is obviously somewhere in between them.
Of course, the White House could not POSSIBLY have been as dense to the dangers of Al Qaida as Clarke would claim, and he is certainly arrogant and self-serving to believe that if they were ignoring HIM, they were ignoring EVERYTHING about Al Qaida that was coming their way. But, by the same token, the Iraq-myopia that dominated the Bush Foreign Policy from prior to 9/11 until now is so obvious, and has been repeated by SO MANY INDEPENDENT SOURCES (including Paul O'Neill, Rand Beers, Joseph Wilson, Gen. Eric Shinseki, and now Clarke) that it cannot possibly be credibly denied with a straight face.
It's fairly certain that he's just trying to sell a book, since his story keeps changing. Wouldn't buy it. Or borrow it.
I certainly get a kick out of someone who purports to be able to criticize the contents of a book, without bothering to inform themselves as to what those contents actually are.
Besides, the good news is that public opinion polls are showing that more people believe Clarke than Bush on this score. The fact that you don't is immaterial, as your vote was never in play.
Certainly, he's more credible than Condoleeza Rice, who blew off the committee so she wouldn't be forced to lie under oath rather than diss her boss by telling the truth.