Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• It is awesomely self-serving for Mr. Clarke to assert that the United States could have stopped terrorism if only the three Presidents he served had better listened to his advice....The only common denominator throughout these 10 years of unanswered attacks was Mr. Clarke himself, a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and shift blame.
  
  ....Mr. President, I do not know if Mr. Clarke's motive for theses charges is partisan gain, personal profit, self promotion, or animus because of his failure to win a promotion in the Bush Administration....Mr. Clarke was clearly consumed by the desire to dodge any blame for the 9-11 attacks while at that same moment rescuers were still searching the rubble of the World Trade Center for survivors....A loyal Administration official?....If, in the summer of 2001, he saw the threat from al Qaeda as grave as he now says it was, and if he found the response of the Administration as inadequate as he now says it was, why did he wait until Sunday, March 21, 2004 to make his concerns known?
  
  ....Mr. President, if Mr. Clarke held his tongue because he was loyal, then shame on him for putting politics above principle. But if he has manufactured these charges for profit and political gain, he is a shame to this government.
  
  ....Mr. President, it is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media. But if he lied under oath to the United States Congress it is a far more serious matter....it is also clear that Mr. Clarke and his publishers adjusted the release date of his book in order to make maximum gain from the publicity around the 9-11 hearings....I find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, trading on his insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this nation on September 11, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce any plan to personally profit from this book.
  
  ....In his appearance before the 9-11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. In my view it was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation. Mr Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct but that is all.

This is so nauseating that I'm really just at a loss to respond.

eta: I'm quoting from this. Perhaps someone can explain to me how Clarke's comments in the off-the-record briefing are contradicted by what he's said more recently. As I read it, he's describing the same things. Decisions were being made, but slowly, and farther down the totem pole than he would have liked. When he briefed the press, he emphasized that something was being done. Now he's angry that it wasn't done faster.