Richard Clarke is All Wet

Articles

Edward Abraham

Richard Clarke is All Wet
Mar 29, 2004

So out of the woodwork comes Richard Clarke, pointing a finger at the Bush administration and assigning blame for the events of September 11, 2001. This gentleman, who as part of the Clinton team, could not stop the first bombing of the World Trade Center in the early 1990's, or subsequent attacks on U.S. interests worldwide, which killed and wounded hundreds, now states the terrorist attacks of 9/11 could have and should have been stopped. By golly he warned them!

To be clear, only the terrorists' incompetence in the first WTC attack prevented a catastrophe much worse than 9/11/01, when the truck bombs that were exploded proved to be insufficient to topple the towers as the terrorists intended.

We have also learned that Richard Clarke indeed voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election. And, in fact, he is a regular contributor to the Democratic party. Further, his book release, testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as his "apology" to the victims of the attacks all happen to coincide such that he stands to make millions in royalties. (Apparently, an apology to 9/11 victims was not so important that it had to take place before Clarke's book was released.)

So Mr. Clarke will benefit both financially and politically from his attacks on the Bush administration. Yet, we are still supposed to take him at his word. And, when members of the Bush team attempt to defend themselves from the Clarke onslaught, the Democrats and their media friends claim Bush is merely trying to "discredit" Clarke, as if this is an action without precedent. (Just a little aside to the press: The act of discrediting witnesses or others is a legitimate defense which has been used in courtrooms internationally for centuries. There is nothing wrong with discrediting an individual who happens to be making unsubstantiated and unsupportable charges, and who also stands to profit significantly from those charges.)

It is also very interesting to note that a guy how is portraying himself as some kind of terrorism expert actually voted for a former Vice President whose administration hacked the U.S. Intelligence budgets and powers so much our ability to identify and thwart terrorist attacks was severely restricted. So, Mr. Clarke is blaming George W. Bush for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, while voting for a candidate whose policies directly facilitated those attacks! Amazing. And the popular media sees no inconsistency in any of this.

Does anyone in their right mind, even Democrats, believe Al Gore would have been tougher on terrorism than George W. Bush? Are we really to think Al Gore would have stopped the September 11, 2001 attacks where the Bush administration failed?

Richard Clarke's vote for Al Gore, on its own, should preclude him from being the terrorism expert he claims to be.

------------

Email Edward Abraham: eabra@myway.com

Tell a friend about this site!

------------