Centerfield

There is a very real lack of responsibility. And the bigger problem is that the failure to acknowledge mistakes is internal and external. But right now there is no way out for the Bush Administration. They have no choice but to deny responsibility as vigourously as possible.

And the more I learn about what went on between January of 2001 and September of 2001, and between October of 2002 and today the more I think they are making mistakes above and beyond that which we should overlook.

Before Richard Clarke came forward, and so elequoently stated his case (particularly on Meet the Press) I assumed that Bush was just doing what Clinton did. I am dismayed to learn that is not the case. Clinton was personally involved in the fight against terrorism. This might just be a function of his style rather than it being a higher priority, but the fact is that Clarke believes his style got more results.

It is deeply dismaying to see the way the GOP is trying to fight back against Clarke. Rather than talk about what the President and the Adminstration did right and what they did wrong they are simply attacking the messenger. That is not going to accomplish anything productive for our safety.

There will always be people who are more inclined to follow strong rhetoric over smart policy, but here we are seeing a failure of monumental proportions. The rhetoric is running the show, and the USA is losing.

I don't know what exactly drove our desire to "do" Iraq. I know that they were dangerous, that it was a long-term priority of the US government, but it is still a mystery to me why we sacraficed on the fight against the enemy that attacked us and turned on an enemy that was trying to lay (relatively) low.

My current guess is that it started with the rhetoric. Bush said we were going to "win". He said we were fighting an axis of evil. Our battle in Afganistan was not producing results that played well on the evening news. So the rhetoric turned to Iraq. Without it being a plan, we had policy makers guessing where the President wanted to go, and due to systematic errors (not personal lies) we ended up with a case for war against Iraq as well as popular support for that war.

This entire period of our history bothers me deeply. This is not like my perception of how the US government is supposed to work, and reminds me more of facism and dystopian novels I read in 10th grade than democracy. But we are still a democracy, and I hope and pray that in the end America can demonstrate that the system works.

And with any luck we will emerge from this period with two parties that are deserving our respect and capable of leading our great nation.

And with any luck we will emerge from this period with two parties that are deserving our respect and capable of leading our great nation.

Don't hold your breath.

I don't find Clarke in the least credible. He's telling stories contradicted by his own accounts over many years, accounts that are consistent until he hits the last few weeks when they do suddenly veer. His most damning charges are backed by little more than his psychic impressions of what he "felt" others in the admin knew or meant when they spoke to him, and he has one massive personal profit motive in keeping things stirred up. That's without addressing any partisan motive he might have in an election year, or his own culpability for eight years of weenie-ism from the Clinton admin.

And he STILL maintains that Al-Shifa was a Bin Laden-owned chemical weapons factory producing nerve gas for Saddam. That alone is enough to destroy his credibility with me. It tells me that Richard Clarke is obsessed with being right, no matter what.

At the same time the Bush team, following its usual arrogant ham-handed approach of smash first and sweep up later, is doing a truly lousy job of handling the whole affair.

Tully,

I find Clarke entirely credible when it comes to facts, more so than the Administration. He knows the dates and he knows the memos. The Administration first tried to deny that a meeting after 9/11 had taken place where the President mentioned Iraq. Now, they admit it did take place, but only after others came forward. They might have kept up their denials otherwise.

Regarding opinion, that's another story. I don't take his views as gospel. Also, the supposed inconsistencies have been on his opinions--e.g. whether Bush was doing enough. Perhaps he's changed his opinion more than he cares to admit.

At what point does he get caught lying enough, or "shading" enough, to doubt his credibility? Credibility is directly related to consistent and confirmable reliability. And Clarke has shown his accounts can't be consistently relied upon, or even always confirmed. So how is he credible?

I can see how some would find him believable, but that's a much different concept than credible. I've known some incredibly believable liars.

And if it's all in his ever-changing opinions, what the heck difference does it make, and what can it possibly prove?

Of course, political and book-selling campaigns aren't about reality. And I just don't see much "there" there, other than as more campaign mud-slinging.

I watched Rice on 60 minutes then watched Clarke on Meet the Press (yes, in that order). I came away believeing Clarke a whole lot more. I am not ready to say he is a hero, or he does not have his own skeletons in his closet, but as far as telling the truth I believe him a whole lot more than Rice and the rest of the administration.

And Bill Frist's performance on the floor of the Senate was really disturbing. He accused a man of perjury when there is no way that he can defend himself with the record. And then the adminstration will only selectively declassify the transcript to make Clarke look as bad as possible. Why can't they just let us see the entire thing? What are they hiding?

The fact that Clake has held position under 4 presidents, since Reagan, suggests that he has a lot of credibility, and that his words are being twisted to discredit him.

Look, lots and lots of people say "Bush lied and people died." I don't think Bushed lied either, but if you dig into his statements, you can find a lot of inconsistencies. It's just too easy to call someone a liar and dismiss them

I'm still astounded by the extent to which people seem obsessed with talking about "facts" when the most serious substance of Clarke's charges boil down to a subjective evaluation of what priority was placed on the problem of terrorism prior to 9/11.

Nothing that has come up so far is anything like a smoking guin that suggests dereliction of duty or a total lack of seriousness. In the absence of such things, I just don't think the people are going to hold Bush to account for his pre-9/11 judgements regarding terrorism. I think the judgement as to the merits of his terrorist policy is going to be based on his post 9/11 response, for better or worse.

I'm also a little bit leery of the idea that it's obvious wisdom that the best course for the Bush admin would be (or would have been) to "come clean" and admit errors. In a world of political debate where the sides treat each other with a modicum of respect and focus on what's best for the country, this is surely true. But in a world where it's instead reasonable to expect that admitting any sort of error would lead to further and redoubled partisan rhetorical crucifixion, it's at least worth reexamining.

Should the Bush admin admit to errors? Perhaps, maybe even probably yes. But should they do it now, or should they have done so in the current climate of an election year? Maybe not. It's at least arguable that such statements are better left until after the election, when such statements could be taken in a context of healing rifts, uniting, and moving forward.

Pragmatically, I have the feeling that apologizing now would weaken Bush. He'd be charged with apologizing only as a strategy, for not being genuine. And it would be maintained that "Even the President admits his policies have failed" or some such hyerbole. Whatever he siad, coul;d be expected to appear as part of a Kerry commercial as an admiision that Bush's policies were deficient. It would be interpreted generously only by those who already support him.

Yes, I agree that apologizing now would weaken Bush.

I would also suggest that the issue of Clarke's credibility is pretty complex. I point to a couple of takes on him from folks making an effort to be even-handed.

First, a couple of posts on Drezner's site:

Reading Against All Enemies

Finishing Against All Enemies

I also point to the new piece in Time magazine:

The Truth of the Matter

The bottom line, I think, is that Clarke is clearly shading or spinning his interpretation so it's more favorable to Clinton and less favorable to Bush. He may be doing so because he had such a big role during the Clinton years, and less so before and after. But he's also probably right that the Bush team was less interested, and less effective, than Clinton, especially on the question of dealing with the specific threats emerging in late-summer 2001.

He's just overemphasizing the contrast. Clinton made serious mistakes in the form of missed opportunities to get bin Laden. Bush made mistakes in the form of "reformulating" what was mostly the existing policy and not taking the intelligence about an impending attack seriously enough.

So, as I say, it's a complex picture. Clarke is neither grossly wrong, nor is he just a straightforward, truth-telling civil servant.

Re: Clarke credibility

Colleague of Ex-Official Disputes Part of Account

"Clarke, as a legend in his own mind."