Here is a great review of Clarke's book from Amazon.com:
765 of 987 people found the following review helpful:
Absorbing Account Of Bush White House War On Terror!, March 22, 2004
Reviewer: Barron Laycock (Labradorman) (see more about me) from Temple, New Hampshire United States
As the sitting White House National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism on the President's National Security Council for more than eight years during both the Clinton and Bush administrations, former intelligence analyst Richard Clarke sat in the literal catbird's seat to observe as well as participate in the national security apparatus in action. As a consequence, his new book detailing the specifics of the government's progress on the war on terror both before and since the advent of 911 is provocative reading indeed. The portrait he paints so convincingly is that of a Bush administration populated by political ideologues and characterized by shooting from the hip at targets of opportunity. Thus, no one within the new administration wanted to believe in the frightening evidence of a mounting Al Qaeda threat in the weeks and months before September 11, 2001, despite the persistent warnings of advisors like himself.
Instead, they seemed preoccupied, as former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neil suggested in his recent book, with regime change in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Astonishingly, the morning after 911 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested attacking Iraq in the total absence of any evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to the attack on New York City or Washington, since Iraq represents a target-rich environment, as opposed to Afghanistan, which has so few. President Bush himself cornered Clarke and attempted to pressure him into finding a link between Hussein and the attack on the World Trade Center on 911 attack. To Mr. Clarke, the Bush administration was intent from that time on to use 911 as a convenient excuse to attack Iraq, something they seem to have desired to do from the very outset of the administration.
Indeed, Clarke's impression of the modus operandi of the so-called "Vulcans" such as Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld is one of a previously set ideological agenda, of having a predetermined objective to attack and conquer Iraq, and then attempting to use the events of 911 as justification to proceed toward that objective. Indeed, the available public record suggests as much, with not only Mr. Bush, but also Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice, as well as Mr. Rumsfeld trotting out a garden variety of ostensible rationales for invading Iraq in the post-911 time frame, all the way from the original "Axis Of Evil" comment in the 2002 State of The Union speech to the spurious linking of Saddam with Al Qaeda to the use of nerve gas against the populace some dozen years before to failure to comply with United nations resolutions since the 1991 attack by the international coalition that deliberately stopped short of regime change due to fear of destabilizing the region.
Mr. Clarke has more than enough criticism to go around, and both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush find themselves seriously criticized and called to task for their lack of appropriate action, given what Mr. Clarke feels was the clear and present danger the evidence he offered indicated. So this book is no simple hatchet job against the Bush administration, as it casts aspersions on both sides of the political fence in terms of ascribing blame for our present set of circumstances regarding lapses in national security. Yet he reserves special scorn for the current administration, given its self-serving and somewhat cynical use of the 911 events to turn the political landscape upside down. What Clark describes as being tantamount to treason is the fashion in which President Bush has politicized the situation for short-term political benefit without taking serious and meaningful action to actually meaningfully combat the set of threats themselves.
Most surprising to Clark is the way in which the Bush administration has done so little to accomplish relatively inexpensive and yet quite effective action against the terrorist threat, such as strengthening the infrastructure or beefing up border security, while hugely increasing the administrative manpower and salaries of personnel within agencies such as Homeland Security, which do little to actually counteract terror threats. Like many observers, Clarke believes the war in Iraq is at best a distraction from the real threat, robbing the country of valuable resources with which we could much more effectively protect ourselves and extend the reach of American power to combat terrorism.
Meanwhile, he views the growth of terrorism and the extension of its world-wide capabilities with alarm, suggesting that our ineffective military actions as well as our inattentiveness to key details which would bolster internal security have led to increased danger and higher threat levels rather than the reverse, and wonders aloud how long it will take for this nightmare scenario to play out with potentially devastating consequences. He is utterly amazed that Bush attempts, through a cynical and self-serving media campaign, to convince Americans we are winning a war on terror we are not really fighting well at all. This is an absolutely riveting read, albeit in less than stirring prose or striking narrative. It serves as forewarning that we are on a wrongheaded and very dangerous path, and that it is high time for a course correction.
Contrasted with the typical rightwing view...one thing I've noticed, just like their imperial leader, these folks don't read, they parrot:
44 of 370 people found the following review helpful:
A complete work of fiction, April 5, 2004
Reviewer: Shelby Johnson from Baton Rouge, LA
Any factual review of the book versus his testimony (yes, depending on WHICH testimony) does not square. Obviously, he had a bone to pick with the current administration for passing him over for a position he desperately wanted. His next best thing was to trash this administration, even if he had to fabricate most of it.
The real standard to look for is his comparison of fighting terrorism by the Clinton administration vs. the current administration. He basically gave a pass to the Clinton administration, which did absolutely nothing except lip service to combat terrorism. For example, each terrorist act committed during the Clinton administration brought out Bill, biting his lip, stating that he wouldn't rest until those responsible were brought to justice. Obviously, he hasn't rested any in 4 years minimum, since he made his appearance, made his statement, and then went back to doing what Bill did best..........posturing.
The book Clark wrote took nothing into account except his displeasure of being passed over for a job. Other than that, he has no explanation for the back-stabbing that he is very good at. |
