Views Challenged By His
Last week I exposed former Clinton aide and self-anointed cyber-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke as the man who gave America Y2K. Over the week I received a Heinz-57 variety of responses to the Clarke article that appeared not only on my own website but on www.NewsWithViews.com, GOPUSA, and were posted on a variety of other websites across the United States, in Europe and in the Middle East. Surprisingly, many of those who expressed their views on the articlemany of whom were conservatives who confessed they had voted for Bush in 2004wrote simply to ask why I was shooting the messenger.
Their question proved, once again, that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes a real good substitute for the truth in the minds of those millions who want to believe its the truth. Particularly, when it is spun so adroitly by the high paid partisan talking heads who hit the radio and TV talk show circuit like locusts in a field of grain when the party bosses are attempting to sell a "position" that might otherwise be hard to swallow without a real tall glass of water.
But while thousands of philosophically-challenged conservatives believed Clarke's tale of two fantasies, and discounted his role in creating the myth we know today as Y2K, several of his former colleagues saw Clarke's book, Against All Enemies for what it really wasfiction, or worse, a very partisan attack on the Bush Administration with political designs for which Clarke would be handsomely rewarded as liberal think tanks lined up to buy thousands of copies of his book, pushing it to the top of the Amazon.com best seller's list.
Setting aside the views of a very partisan conservative for a moment, what did Clarke's colleagues think about his work?
Former National Security Council [NSC] member Coit Blacker who now serves as Director of the Institute for International Studies also served as a Special Advisor to Bill Clinton during the Clarke era, confessed that he was "...uncomfortable with the charge that somehow the Bush people ignored or didn't treat in a serious way the fact that this country was under major threat from terrorist organizations. I just don't think that's right. They may not have been sufficiently attentive to what Dick thought they needed to know, but that's not the same thing as taking a cavalier attitude towards the threat."
Sean McCormack, National Security Council spokesman, who was in the Situation Room with Clarke the day after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, disputed several passages of Clarke's book as pure fiction. The Democrats, for some strange reason, would like us to believe that Richard A. Clarke was the man at the controls when 9-11 happened. Vice President Richard Cheney, Clarke says in his book, was off hiding in a basement somewhere. Clarke would also like us to believe that the President was flying all over the country in Air Force One looking for a safe place to hide as well. While all this was going, self-styled cyberterrorist expert Clarke would like us to believe that he was confidently at the helm of the Ship of State. Clarke seemed to find it easy to ignore the fact that he had become a second-string bureaucrat who worked for Dr. Condoleeza Ricewho was very much present and very much in contact with the President throughout the day on 9-11.
You know, Clarke kinda reminds me of Gen. Alexander Haig, Ronald Reagan's chief-of-staff when John Hinckley tried to assassinate the nation's 40th president. Unmindful of the order of succession in the event the President of the United States is assassinated or becomes physically or mentally incapacitated, Haig dutifully announced to the media that he was "in charge." Clarke in 2001, like Haig on that fateful day in 1981, was in charge of virtually nothing. Both attempted to create the illusion that each was someone or something that he was not. Am I planning to buy Clarke's book? If I was a guy who read fiction, perhaps I might. But, I guess I'll just wait for the movie.
Well, once again, you have my two cents worth.