Resume Item: “Betrayed Two Presidents”
By Tom Barrett (03/29/04)
Richard Clarke, who betrayed two Presidents for whom he worked, is now angling for a job with a third. After failing the nation in his counter-terrorism role in the Clinton and Bush administrations, Clarke is doing all he can to put Kerry in the White House in hopes of getting a job in his administration.
This is the short story of the only man in the news who flip-flops more than John Heinz Forbes Kerry. Clarke was the counter-terrorism czar under Bill Clinton. Needless to say, he was a miserable failure. When Bush was elected, Clarke kissed up to him by stating loudly and very publicly that Clinton was the failure. He whined that Clinton didn’t listen to Clarke’s vaunted wisdom, that Clinton “…did not make fighting terrorism a priority,” et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum. Betrayal Number One.
I can’t begin to understand why the Bush people kept this snake on the payroll. Perhaps he convinced them that he was the only one around who really knew the terrorists. After all, he had been investigating al Qaeda for years. Whatever the reason, he was still on the job when 9-11 occurred. In numerous interviews he praised the way Bush handled the aftermath of the terror attacks. Today he explains this away by saying that he was saying good things about his boss. But when he left the administration he sent Bush a very complimentary letter regarding Bush’s efforts in the war on terrorism. That one can’t be explained away because he no longer worked for Bush. So today he pretends that it never happened.
Jump forward to last week when his book of lies was released. Also note the amazing “coincidence” that his book was released the same week Clarke was scheduled to testify before the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission. In a complete flip-flop of his former statements on the record, Clarke claims that his second boss, Bush, totally ignored terrorism. He also takes cheap shots at Dr. Condoleeza Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor, saying that she did not know what al Qaeda was when he discussed it with her (a totally ridiculous smear). Betrayal Number Two.
Now he’s kissing up to Kerry in hopes that he will become the National Security Advisor instead of the second banana role he served in the Clinton and Bush administrations. I don’t think even Lurch would be dumb enough to hire a man who had publicly betrayed his last two Presidents, but who knows? In any case, we’ll never find out because Kerry doesn’t have a prayer.
Clarke will continue his Bush-bashing for three reasons: The publicity is making him a millionaire in book sales. According to Time, “If he receives a typical royalty rate, he would make at least $1.8 million from sales.” That alone is sufficient reason for a man like him to lie. But Clarke lusts after power even more than money. So he will do everything he can to see Kerry elected, including lying to the 9-11 Commission under oath, on the off chance that Kerry might win and give him a job.
The third reason is even more shameful. Clarke is purely spiteful. He resents the fact that he didn’t get a promotion he felt he deserved, so he will stoop as low as he needs to in order to hurt Bush. He reminds me a lot of Little Tommy Daschle.
After he was passed over for a high-level position at the new Department of Homeland Security, an offended Clarke resigned. “Dick's flaw is that his ego is boundless…he acts as if the world revolves around him, and it doesn't." So says Winston Wiley, a retired senior CIA administrator worked with Clarke for five years."
Clarke’s own book backs up Wiley’s assessment. In one passage he describes sitting on his stoop, contemplating his unappreciated talents while drinking a bottle of wine. And in a speech two years ago at Portland State University, he had the nerve to compare his foresight to Winston Churchill's!
Let’s look at Clarke’s “service” to our nation. He was in charge of counter-terrorism in two administrations in the years leading up to 9-11, but he never sounded an alarm. Today he claims he did, but no one who was there remembers anything about it. What a coincidence!
His job was to counter (stop, defeat) terrorism. Yet he didn’t have a clue about al Qaeda, except to make some vague noises about possible threats to other countries. Had he actually raised an alarm about an al Qaeda threat to our country, it would be in the briefing notes. It isn’t.
Clarke claims he is not a partisan. To back that up, he says that he voted for John McCain. No one except Clarke knows who he voted for in that booth, but even if he is telling the truth, McCain votes liberal as much as he does conservative. More telling is the fact that Clarke only donates campaign money to the Democrat party.
Many of the 9-11 Commissioners are skeptical of Clarke’s motivations. John Lehman, former Navy secretary under President Reagan, told Clarke that he had a "real credibility problem," and called him "an active partisan selling a book." He castigated Clarke for using the pain of the victims of 9-11 to sell his book. And he noted the remarkable fact that the liberal 60 Minutes program delayed the airing of their interview with Clarke to coincide with the release of his book, the selling of the movie rights, and his appearance before the Commission. He also noted that Clarke’s public testimony (which sells books) was very much at odds with his private testimony before the Commission last August.
An interesting note: Free Press, Clarke’s book publisher, and CBS are both owned by a huge corporation, Viacom. 60 Minutes, which aired their infomercial disguised as an interview for Clarke’s book with such convenient timing, is a CBS show. Wow! Another coincidence! This story is full of them.
James Thompson, another 9-11 Commissioner, challenged Clarke on the record to reconcile his pro-Bush Administration statements to reporters with his pejorative book. "We have your book, and we have your press briefing. Which is true?"
Thompson’s question is certainly understandable in light of these Clarke quotes: In August 2002 Clarke stated on the record (again in Time Magazine) that the Bush Administration's al-Qaeda policy review had moved "as fast as could be expected." He then told a roomful of reporters that the Bush White House had "vigorously" pursued the prior administration's al Qaeda policy. He also said that the Clinton administration had developed “no new plan or strategy to take action against al-Qaeda”. But in his book, Clarke says just the opposite. He describes a supposed Clinton plan that no one else remembers, and then rebukes Bush Administration for not implementing it. As impossible as it might seem, this guy actually flip-flops more than Kerry!
A note about the power of the liberal media. A week ago no one knew who this mid-level bureaucrat was. Today, according to a Pew Research Center poll, an astounding 89% of Americans know that Richard Clarke has accused the President of dereliction of duty. If someone had written a book about how John Kerry somehow got three purple hearts in Viet Nam, but never missed a day of duty, the press would have ignored him, because Kerry is their man. But let a scoundrel like Clarke publish a book full of unsubstantiated lies, and suddenly more people know him than know who their state’s governor is.
In something of a surprise statement, Joe Lieberman said last week (link below) that there is “no basis” for Clarke's accusations. The former Democratic presidential candidate even suggested that Clarke's allegations were driven by election-year politics. He warned, "There is a higher interest than our partisan interest in victory, and that is the national interest in victory over terrorism.”
Some senators are attempting to declassify closed-door testimony Clarke gave in 2002 before a congressional committee to demonstrate that his testimony then contradicts what he told the 9-11 Commission. "It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media," said Senate majority leader Bill Frist, "but if he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far, far more serious matter."
Here’s the bottom line. Under Clarke’s watch as the head of counter-terrorism al-Qaeda grew exponentially, attacked U.S. citizens and executed the deadliest terrorist attack any nation has ever experienced. He has tried at various times to blame both Clinton and Bush for his failures. At other times he has praised both of these Presidents, saying that each did a wonderful job of fighting terrorism. Why should we believe ANYTHING this hypocrite says?
ARTICLES REGARDING CLARKE’S ACCUSATIONS
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/fsalvato/2004/fs_0325.shtml
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2004/jm_0326.shtml
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0325_clarke_contradiction.shtml
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0325_fox_transcript.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/24/153453.shtml
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0326_moveon_clarke.shtml
http://www.gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl?act=ST;f=1;t=10517
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/march/0323_big_guns_clarke.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/22/14702.shtml
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/jireland/2004/ji_0323.shtml
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Barrett
