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: JohnM who wrote (38015)	4/5/2004 11:40:07 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793969

Phil Carter at Intel Dump, hardly a big fan of the Bush administration, is unimpressed and unconvinced after reading Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies: The review is well worth reading. My final report on Clarke's book: I just finished Dick Clarke's book Against All Enemies, and have only a couple of things to add to my earlier thoughts. In general, I was somewhat disappointed with the book after all the hype that has surrounded it. The most valuable part of the book, for me, was the look that it gave me into the inner workings of the National Security Council and the national security process generally. The extent to which personality affected policy and process really surprised me; so did the power of professional public servants in relation to their political masters. But as for the final chapters, which supposedly damn the Bush Administration's for its terrorism policy and policy towards Iraq, I was unconvinced by Mr. Clarke's writing. I have immersed myself in the world of anti-terrorism and the law during the past two years, and I was not convinced by a lot of what he said with respect to the legal and financial strategies against terrorism. My experience and research has showed me that these fights have been quite aggressive indeed -- perhaps too aggressive in some quarters. As for Mr. Clarke's argument regarding Iraq, I closed his book without having been persuaded by his argument. He did not marshal enough evidence to persuade me that the Bush Administration had deceived the American public to march towards war, or that it had considered (and disregarded) all of the strategic costs of the war. That's not to say that these things aren't true -- only that Mr. Clarke's book didn't do a good job of making these arguments. Similarly, I was unimpressed by Mr. Clarke's argument that the war in Iraq has been a distraction from the war on terrorism. With his knowledge of this issue, I expected a detailed breakdown of all the ways that the war in Iraq took away resources, political capital, and focus from the domestic and foreign war on terrorism. I found that argument to be lacking as well. He did not, for example, discuss how intelligence assets devoted to finding Iraqi WMD might have been devoted to finding Al Qaeda personnel and equipment. Nor did look at the resource-allocation problem with his NSC-trained eye, in order to make the argument the billions spent on Iraq might have been otherwise programmed for homeland security. Ultimately, I recommend this book for anyone interested in terrorism and national security policy. It does contain a great deal of background information on the way things get done on the National Security Council, and those parts of the book are quite valuable. However, Mr. Clarke's larger point really comes back to himself. He makes a great effort to blame others for their failings in the war on terrorism -- the FBI for being too focused on law enforcement; the CIA for being too risk-averse, and too constrained by a lack of HUMINT capabilities; the military for also being risk-averse, and for jealously guarding its financial pot. If we take all of these criticisms as true, then the real blame belongs to the White House. My understanding of the national security process is that that the NSC has the job of coordinating its separate agencies, to make sure everyone's playing off the same sheet of music, and everyone's working for the same boss. The failure to harmonize CIA and FBI and DoD performance with White House strategy seems to indicate a breakdown at the NSC and OMB level. If the FBI refuses to invest in information technology or commit agents to anti-terrorism work, then it's the White House's job (including NSC and OMB) to make them do their job. Similarly, if the CIA doesn't want to arm Predators to hunt for Al Qaeda's top leaders, but the White House does, who should win that fight? I'm unconvinced by any White House account that lays blame on subordinate agencies, at least where I don't also see concrete evidence (e.g. the firing of a cabinet secretary) to show that the White House really exercised some leadership. Maybe the White House needs to bring back President Truman's "The Buck Stops Here" sign and make it a permanent fixture in the Oval Office? Bottom Line -- what Mr. Clarke describes in his book is a breakdown in leadership. And this breakdown is common to both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, because the faults that Mr. Clarke describes start in the 1990s and continue through the election of 2000, all the way to the present day. Mr. Clarke's book may be best known to the public as a criticism of the Bush Administration's war with Iraq. But to me, it was more about allocating blame to other people in Washington. Ironically, by pointing fingers at so many different agencies, Mr. Clarke is really pointing the finger back at himself, because it was his job to coordinate those agencies on the critical issue of terrorism. Ultimately, such blame belongs to the men who sit in the Oval Office, not to any political or professional public servant on the National Security Council. Nonetheless, I got the sense from Against All Enemies that the NSC deserved at least part of the blame here for not managing and coordinating U.S. policy on this issue during the ascendance of Al Qaeda. Next book: In the Company of Soldiers by Rick Atkinson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter who was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The book was slammed in the WP's book review as being a book about officers, not soldiers, but praised in the NYT book review. Regardless, I'm looking forward to it, because of the caliber of Mr. Atkinson's previous work. philcarter.blogspot.com

To: JohnM who wrote (38015)	4/6/2004 12:53:51 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793969

Thought I would try to help you and your kin this year. :>) Do's and dont's from the "Republicans for Nader" site. Republicans For Ralph Do's And Don'ts! DO try to convince your democratic or liberal pals that Ralph's rage against the corporate and political machine has changed your mind and captured your heart and your vote. If they think YOU can be swayed, they'll believe Ralph has a chance and vote for him. First and foremost, always remember, a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush! DO go to Nader's website and stroke his ego with e-mails of encouragement. Every day somebody supports him, they aren't supporting Kerry. DO if you run into a Nader rally on your way to someplace else, try to mingle in with the crowd and say things like "he can really do it" and "I think he's got a shot this year." Try to do this with a straight face. If you find yourself laughing uncontrollably, explain you were thinking of something funny that Janeane Garofalo said in 1994. DO your part to get Ralph on the ballot in your state. Sign the petitions. And use your real name so your vote counts. DO put a "Nader for President" bumper sticker on your car, but DON'T put it on a part with paint, because you're peeling it off on November 2. Also, since you're a Republican, people will be impressed that someone with a nice car supports Ralph. DON'T attend Nader rallies in the clothes you wear every day. Dress down or his supporters might suspect. DON'T waste any ACTUAL time supporting Ralph, do these things while doing other things. Sign the petition on the way to buy meat at the grocery store. Call into talk radio stations while driving to your local Bush/Cheney event. DO inform Nader supporters that you went to a green party rally and they were talking smack about Ralph. If you find yourself around Green party members, tell them you were with a bunch of Nader people the other day, and they were making fun of their body odor. Divide and Conquer! DO Tell all polsters you're voting for Ralph. Give Ralph the momentum to stay in the race, even though he's a crazy, bitter old coot. It almost worked for Howard Dean. DON'T actually vote for Nader on election day! Remember, it's all about bait and switch. We bait, then switch! We're supporting Nader all the way up to November 1, 2004. And then, cast your vote for President Bush. republicansforralph.com