The Courageous Mr. ClarkeA story of political profiteeringby Vincent Fiore Surely a sign of our times, the national media and by extension the 9/11 Commission have come to recognize the apology of bomb thrower Richard Clarke as the seminal moment of the hearings. We tried hard, but that doesnt matter because we failed, and I failed you. In an atmosphere that took on the sole purpose of blamenship, Clarke found it in himself to have a self serving moment of regret that he, Clarke the Courageous, sounded the warning on terrorism for some years now, yet no one would listen. According to the courageous one, somebody has to be responsible for 9/11, so why not Bush? But the occurrence of events belies the severity of Bushs supposed indifference to terrorism pre-9/11. Anyone, meaning anybody capable of connecting the dots, can see the folly of Mr. Clarkes charges. A quick look back shows the immense hole in Clarkes perception of events, leaving one to conclude that the former Clinton/Bush Terrorism Czar is either woefully mistaken, serially incompetent, or plainly-as I see it- for sale. As President Clintons counterterrorism coordinator, Clarke, was in charge when:
The above illustrates Clarkes own record of failure in regard to terrorism. If one were to ask just how effective Clarke had been those past eight-plus years as Terrorism Czar, can it not be measured against al-Qaedas successive and successful attacks as time crept on, finally culminating on September 11? As the media is so fond of saying, It happened on his watch. This would also include domestic terrorism, as in the case of Oklahoma. Just because it is a domestic attack, does not make it any less terrifying and senseless. Clarke failed both Presidents Clinton and Bush. Policy is set by the President, and corresponding events may change or shape these policies. This is where a Presidents cabinet officers and top officials can make a meaningful difference. In 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell did just that. He convinced President Bush to go to the U.N. and attempt to navigate the diplomatic world body with regard to Iraq. Bush had heard misgivings within his administration as to why he should not seek U.N. approval, or even disapproval. This would be the shadowy NeoConservative wing of the White House, the much referred to Rumsfeld/Rice/Wolfowitz cabal. To Bushs credit, he took Powells advice, recommendations that he (Powell) labored to be seen as policy. Powell succeeded with Bush where Clarke did not with the Clinton Administration. Clarkes few shining moments, such as the 1999 Los Angeles airport bombing plot cannot be looked upon as making him unapproachable in regard to his own failures and whatever administrations he served. Clarke, as it turns out, is the common thread that runs through both the Clinton/Bush administrations. His apology should be for his own actions specifically, or inaction, as his eight-plus years of being in charge of counterterrorism attests to. Clarke could have resigned under protest to bring events to light if he felt that little importance was paid to terrorism. Or he could have leaked out an anonymous story to an always accommodating media to roil the political waters a bit. Instead, when denied the number 2 spot in the newly created Department of Homeland Security by National Security Advisor Condi Rice, he decided to resign on good terms, it was thought, and get down to the serious business of revenge. As you thumb through the pages of Clarkes memoir Against All Enemies, keep that in mind. As the bureaucratic fan dance that is the 9/11 Commission wraps up, what has been accomplished? So far, not a heck of a lot. For all its trumpeted bipartisanship, the well was poisoned with Clarkes venomous book. Giving him 2 ½ hours to promote himself before the American people is just another indication that partisan politics rules the process, September 11 be damned. At the end of the day, Clarkes book weights heavily upon his own opinions. There is no serious factual evidence that he points to with regard to the Bush Administration's action pre 9/11, and his own words have begun to haunt him. There is, to borrow another euphemism of the medias, no smoking gun. There is only the tarnished, bitter writings of a profiteering man who has managed to do something in one week that he could not do in a lifetime in government, and that is be effective. The lesson of September 11 is one that should look forward, and not look back in order only to access blame. President Clinton had 96 months in office, and never would I say he purposely turned his back on terrorism. President Bush had only 8 months in office, almost to the day when the South Tower was struck, and never would I say he was disinterested in terrorism. The point is this: It is the terrorist who are to blame for 9/11 and all the previous loss of life, not American Presidents. Even Mr. Clarke, whom I did not spare in this space, is really not to blame. To me, the seminal moment of these 9/11 hearings was when committee member Slade Gorton, former Republican senator from Washington state, asked Clarke what would have happened if Bush had immediately adopted his plan to militarily target al-Qaida. "Is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9-11?" Clarkes answer was an unambiguous No. One wishes that Clarkes book could have been as clear and precise. And we should further wish that this political seasons fishing expedition would cease its cacophonous cry of blame someone and get down to the serious business of killing terrorist before they kill us. |