Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (127294)	3/23/2004 10:50:52 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: Clarke - he may well be a good man, but he was completely out of his depth as cyberterrorism czar. vmyths.com Further, as the "brains" behind bombing the Al Shifa aspirin factory in Sudan, he clearly had other problems. If nothing else, not being omniscient nor omnicompetent. What's that? We can't expect people to be omniscient and omnicompetent? Well then, a little of "the buck stops here" would go a long way towards greasing Richard Clarke past my gag reflex. The ability to internalize failure rather than blame others is a key characteristic in a manager, in my opinion. Sine qua non, in fact.

To: FaultLine who wrote (127294)	3/24/2004 3:51:27 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I was very pleasantly surprised today to hear Richard Clarke apologize to the American people for failing to stop 9/11, and ask for understanding and forgiveness. Admirable. I certainly don't blame him for not being omniscient nor omnicompetent. I would lay blame - if I can call it blame, maybe just causation - at the well-ingrained resistance, world-wide, against crossing the borders of other nations in order to go after terrorists whom they gave sanctuary. And we were all here during the debates about what to do about the Taliban in Afghanistan, and some treaty mentioned - if I recall correctly - by Kissinger - the Treaty of Westphalia? 1648? Which somehow made it illegal to interfere in other countries' personal business? And that it was up to the state sponsors of terrorism to clean up the terrorists. Ring any bells, anyone? I am not taking notes but maybe somebody else is -- are the people who are condemning the Bush administration for not using force against bin Laden sooner the same ones who condemn the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, or different? And are they also condemning the Clinton administration? Or is it all being spun in the context of the 2004 presidential election, as it seems to me?

To: FaultLine who wrote (127294)	3/27/2004 3:01:57 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hello Thread, I just received this response to a query I sent: Offer my thanks to your respondent. He has consistently maintained this view of Clarke: arrogant, difficult to work with, but amazingly efficient, able to get agencies, beauracracies to do extraordinary things, certainly kept in place because of those abilities. Ken, you may recall some of us discussed the book on terrorism which came out of the Clinton NSC terrorism staff, Sacred Terror or something like that. Your source talked about, as I recall, Clarke then with us. Frankly, Clarke's presentation tracks with the 9-11 commission's staff summaries and just about everything else we know. Hard to see why, at this level, the Bush folk are so worked up. At the moment it looks as if it's the old admonition: if you want books to sell try to get it banned in Boston. The Bush attacks make Clarke's book more interesting.

To: FaultLine who wrote (127294)	3/28/2004 11:28:45 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Clarke has to be taken in the context of the times. During the Clinton Administration, we were a fat happy, self-obsessed, hedonistic nation making money hands over fist during the irrational exuberance of the stock market tech bubble. Interest rates and the price of oil were low, the budget was in surplus, the economic cycle was a thing of the past, and the biggest political issue was whether Monica's dress would ever be DNA-tested. In other words, life was good and it was going to get better. The Clinton Administration gave security and foreign policy issues less emphasis because there was no overarching sense of threat. We were protected by two oceans and no one had yet dared to attack us at home. How could such an attack be mounted? If an impolitic, rude, difficult, workaholic crank with a single-minded agenda that called for serious steps to be taken to stop Al Qaeda were to rock the pleasant boat that we rode in the late 90s and early 00s, it was only natural that he be ignored by policy makers. The paramount issue, in my view, is not whether Clarke was right, but why he was not heard. Apparently, much of the reason has to do with his personality. Perhaps a different approach on his part might have helped. But don't forget to consider the context of the times, too.