Replies

What should we have done during those lost years? Clarke answered: “Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. . . . That’s . . . the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.” It did not. And who was president? Clinton. Who was the Clinton administration’s top counterterrorism official? Clarke. He now says that no one followed his advice. Why did he not speak out then? And if the issue was as critical to the nation as he now tells us, why didn’t he resign in protest?

This is the essence of this article from my perspective... If Clarke was serious about wanting to warn the US about the threat of terrorism, al Qaeda, OBL and if he wanted to intercede in the gathering threat, and put this issue on the national agenda, why didn't he resign in 1999 or even 2000 and go public then? Why didn't he take up his book project and get it into the national debate for the 2000 election when he could have forced both parties to step-up and answer?

In this light, he did owe everyone an apology because HE COULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE AND HE CHOSE NOT TO.

Unfortunately, Richard Clarke is as feckless as his Clinton "superiors" -- and that's a very low standard indeeed.

Before I read this article, and your response, I wrote the words below, in another thread. Let us hope that the majority of voting Americans understand this.

&&&

"Why did ho not resign, or transfer away from BJC? Because he lived for his face time in the Oval Office. That's what Bush and Rice took away from him. "

In this light, he did owe everyone an apology because HE COULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE AND HE CHOSE NOT TO

In relistening to Clarke in the 9/11 commission, I noticed he said more than once, that Iraq was always known to be harboring terrorists, and also Iran, and Syria.

It seems the dems would have a problem with that sort of testimony, as they mostly project that it was a bad idea to go to Iraq, and that Iraq clearly had nothing to do with 9/11.

My understanding is that the WOT is against even states that harbor terrorists.

For some reason, I keep getting the impression that his main idea was always to cut off the head, so to speak, by pounding the rubble and blowing up tents and jungle gyms. Haven't heard much about any comprehensive plan for going after terrorists wherever they are, as our current administration does and is.

Is also sickening that he got applause several times.