I agree with a lot of what you say regarding the Arab Muslim World. Yet, there are many on ET such as "AAA-Beltway" who obviously believe that the evidence and assessment of Iraq's WMD program was "valid" as well as accurate. Given that, I have a very difficult problem with the way that our CIA was "prostituted" by the current Administration. This unfortunately has HUGE repercussions when looking down the road and future of our Country. Just take a moment and think about the BIG picture and the ability of our intelligence agencies to do their job without senior cabinet members of an Administration coming up to CIA headquarters to "help" out. I repeat, up until this Administration the CIA has been an independent intelligence organization that seeks the truth. This has now been compromised and has some severe repercussions for our Country going forward.
If only it were that simple. Most of what he complains about is opinion, not fact. He "concluded" this or that from someone's facial expression. He "assumed" someone wanted the evidence to prove something. Not much fact there to hang one's hat on. I'm not dismissing everything he says, I'm suggesting instead that he is simply suing 20-20 hindsight to both assign blame unfairly and somehow suggest culpability. If anyone is culpable, he should be at the head of the line. He was the supposed anti-terrorism expert for the 8 years of Clinton, when we had no coherent policy and took no effective steps. I simply don't see the support for his conclusion that Clinton was more focused on terrorism than Bush. That leads me to question motives. His seem especially clear. 1) Score settling. Those of you who live in the real world probably underestimate this as a motive. You can't imagine that someone would be so petty and venal as to seize on a tragedy like 9/11 to avenge perceived slights and indignities. To you I say, you don't understand what motivates career bureaucrats like Clarke. He obviously hates Rice, who basically sacked him. 2) Selling books. His timing was obviously designed to coincide with the 9/11 Commission hearings and did brilliantly. The apology to the families was a nice touch, very Clintonesque, in making himself look magnanimous while apologizing for the stupidity and evilness of the administration. Gotta admire that. 3)Personal advancement. He is now a bona fide celebrity Bush basher, and as such, is a prime catch for the netwroks, mcuh as George Stephanopolous was. Also, I wonder if he'd answer under oath what his friend who works for Kerry has promised him in a Kerry administration? Maybe an ambassadorship? National Security Advisor? DCI?
Do you discount what Ann Coulter writes just because she wants to sell books? Do you discount what she says when she is out pumping her books? You can't have it both ways....
You keep repeating this as though that will make it true. Sorry but Henry Waxman is not a valid source. He is an extreme partisan Dem from the nutcase left wing of the party. I'd sooner rely on Al Sharpton. You have no evidence that Bush did anything to the CIA and the DCI's word that he didn't. He's a Dem BTW. The record is that every intell agency agreed with the assessment that Iraq was potentially a threat to us, that the timing was uncertain, that it was a threat to its neighbors and that it was in clear violation of the cease fire accord. I find it comical that guys like Kerry and Waxman, who have used every ounce of their political power to frustrate the CIA, limit its abilities and cut its funding, now suddenly are outraged that the CIA's assessment of Iraq was not 100% accurate. You reap what you sow guys.
Art, I know you're smarter than that. Ann Coulter is not claiming that she witnessed the administration recklessly exposing the country to terrorist attack. This guy is. What she writes stands on its own merit. He is claiming credibility based on 30 years government service. Otherwise he would just be another Dean supporter howling at the moon. I mean really, there are two possible assessments of Clarke. One, he is a dedicated public servant who was just sickened by the incompetence he witnessed in the Bush administration and felt he had no option but to go public in a desperate attempt to alert the country to the danger it faced if the most liberal guy in the Senate, John Kerry, was not put in charge of national defense. Or two, he is a fairly despicable opportunist who is using his 15 minutes to make Condi Rice and Bush pay dearly for slighting him, plus cashing in handsomely at the same time. Pretty clear to me which is more likely.
He is either lying or telling the truth. You are predisposed to believe him lying, I am predisposed to think Bush is lying. David Kaye, Hans Blix, O'Neill, Ritter, etc.....you see some conspiracy theory, I see people being attacked for telling the truth. I see Bush joking about his ineptitude to find WMD as a press function, while billions are wasted and people die. All depends on your point of view.
I used to date a gal that has a father that was a former Deputy Director of the CIA under a Republican President. All I can tell you is that never, never once, not one time did the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State, or the National Security Advisor come up to the CIA for a "working" visit. Furthermore, you can always try to "cloud" the real issue with your typical politics about Dems vs Republicans and your reference to Henry Waxman's letter being essentially meaningless because he is such a liberal . . . but the fact of the matter is that we are talking about a forgery here of a document that the current Administration used to go to war with. These "Niger" documents were used to prove that Iraq was developing a nuclear program. You can have endless arguments about the correct interpretation of this piece of intelligence or that intelligence analysis, but a forgery is a forgery. It's demonstrable that the Vice President of our Country knew that it was a forgery back in March of 2002. These documents were used to deceive our Congressman and Senators into voting for an unprovoked war. Why you cannot see this is beyond me.
Your arguments imply that we should not believe what democrats say to criticize republicans. If you generalize this, then we should not believe what republicans say to criticize democrats, either. In fact, the consequences of your implied arguments are that all politicians are liars, and lie all the time conserning politics. So when you are quoting republicans you really can't believe their arguments - but still use them. Or do you have a special filter/insider info showing you what's true coming from republicans ? Ironically, that is the case for a lot of things, isn't it.
ART, I never said he was lying. How can I say he is lying when it is all his impressions and conclusions? I don't know what's in the man's mind. I can say that some of what he says seems illogical, and that a lot of it depends on 20-20 hindsight. Not surprisingly, he seems to be the only person who truly understands the situation, who has a plan, who is in charge of the facts, who is not controlled by petty political motives or worse. If only the fools had listened to him! Of course, this is not rare in memoirs by those formerly in public life.