This was from www.washtimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm
Democrats please pay extra attention to this article.
“If President Bush had followed every last letter of Richard Clarke’s recommendations starting Inauguration Day, it still would not have prevented 9/11,” the Wall Street Journal says.
“How do we know this? Richard Clarke says so,” the newspaper said in an editorial.
"Here’s how the disgruntled National Security Council adviser put it last week in an exchange with Slade Gorton, a member of the 9/11 Commission and former Washington senator:
"Mr. Gorton: 'Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25 of 2001 … including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for 2? years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
"Mr. Clarke: ‘No.’
"Mr. Gorton: ‘It just would have allowed our response after 9/11 to be perhaps a little bit faster?’
"Mr. Clarke: ‘Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.’
"Mr. Gorton: ‘But ? yes, but we weren’t going to ? there was no recommendation on your part or anyone else’s part that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?’
"Mr. Clarke: ‘That’s right.’
"This startling exchange got almost no media attention last week. Mr. Clarke has rocketed to national fame over the past 10 days by alleging the Bush administration was negligently inattentive to the al Qaeda threat. He took it upon himself to ‘apologize’ on behalf of ‘your government’ to the families of 9/11 victims, as if there had been policy options on the table ? perhaps offered by him ? that might have prevented their deaths.
“But when pressed on that point under oath, Mr. Clarke was forced to concede that the impression he’d created, the very reason anyone was paying any attention to him, was false. As long as Mr. Clarke is in the apology business, can we have one for wasting a week of the administration’s precious antiterror time?”
In a previous post, RightSideUp made some assumptions about what I thought about the Clarke business. I’ll tell you what I think. I think 9/11 was unbelievably awful. It changed my thinking drastically. I became a greater proponent of a muscular foreign policy. I am scared to death that a vial of ricin could kill everyone in Washington D.C. I am now very proactive.
Richard Clarke sounds a lot like Richard McNamara in the 1980’s. For those of you who do not know, he was the Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson. He was intimately involved in Vietnam strategy/tactics. Towards the end of his life he gave at least one tearful, public admission that Vietnam was wrong. This is what I think Clarke is doing. He is questioning himself as to whether he could/should have done more prior to 9/11. Unfortunately, instead of self-reflection and private discussions with his previous employers, he has decided to start pointing fingers. I personally feel the fact that he has a book deal of $1 million dollars, teaches a class on terrorism with John Kerry’s pal, and he voted for Gore are secondary issues. I think guilt and second guessing are his primary motivations.