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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (38007)	4/5/2004 2:16:56 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793963

A number of folks make a big deal out of Clarke's unbiased opinions and opine on how he is attacked by the vast right wing attack machine. Not my argument. Clarke, as a bureaucratic player had a reputation as deeply biased in the sense that he was a passionate advocate for his positions, clearly played the game with elbows flailing, take no prisoners. Not someone you want to spend time with. I'm interested, however, in his arguments. And two of them struck me. I've listed them too often on the thread to need to state them again. These same people have consistently denigrated Laurie Mylroie and her theories. I actually don't know whether that is the case or not. My first serious introduction to her name was on FADG when tek took great issue with her arguments. Called them some nasty names. I've since seen the same position taken by Ken Pollack and Fareed Zakaria. And, oh, yes, Peter Bergen on CNN. I simply trust their judgment on this issue. As opposed to the judgment of those who've touted her theories--Woolsey is the best illustration, though far from the only. Obviously there was no political influence on intel during the Clinton years :-) Oh, I know you mean that as a joke and I take it that way. But read the Coll book, Ghost Warriors. Everything that every administration did, every distinct incarnation of the State Dept, of the CIA, of DOD was intensely political. Some in the best sense of that word; some in the worst. My own opinion - there probably is a relationship between the 93 bombing, the Oklahoma bombing and Iraq. The trappings of co-incidence are hard to dismiss (or easy if you don't want to think about them). I've read a piece or two that so speculates. But nothing with connections that seem to hold up. At least in any serious sense. Much of it is built on proximity, as I recall it, and proximity doesn't get far enough for me. There is probably also some culpability in the current administration into discounting Clarke during the turnover in 01. He was seen as a loser in the terrorist wars (which he was, but that's hardly the point - he was one of the few experts available). I don't think they saw him as a loser. I'm not certain why they kept him on. Best I can tell his counter terrorism credentials were first rate; he worked well with Tenet whom they were keeping on; he was apolitical; knew, as they say, where the bodies were buried. The problem as I see it right now, and I do reserve the right to change my mind, is that the Bush folk were on another path, the state actors path not the terrorism path, but wished to keep the terrorism structures alive for the obvious reasons. Just didn't want to put it at the top of the list. I fail to see why they didn't say that early on after 9-11 and move on from there. Now it's definitely too late. Too many attempts to hide what happened.