This is something I was waiting for. G-Man and I stand at opposite sides of the spectrum. I am not a Democrat, but I am a liberal. Not the same thing, but I would never vote purely for party, because it's like joining a fraternity.
Still, researching this thing (or reading books on it), working for government offices and having relatives who work in high levels of government, I was kind of waiting for Clarke to step up to the plate.
For my money, and I will stand by this, Greg Palast, as an investigative reporter, usually gets his facts straight. Not about huge conspiracies as much as exposing hidden truths kept from the masses, while others benefit from this. Comes out to bite people in the ass later on, and we end up asking ourselves, "Why didn't we know?" or "Why didn't we do anything?"
This is important for WHOEVER'S in charge. Be it DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN. Remember that. Being greedy and capable of self-indulgient abuses of power is open to anyone. Clinton gave pardons for money, had his cock sucked, smoked pot, and did some other questionable or devious things.
But his turn is over. Now we address who is in power. The current crisis. The current things we can handle. Don't want to be asking ourselves "Why didn't we know?" "What could we have done?"
Clarke had been a member of four presidential staffs. Goes back to Reagan. Only one was a Democrat. He left under Bush, and he writes complaining about what we did not do. Now, I don't know about you, but I have heard a lot of other people complain too.
When the initial hearings happened in 2002, the FBI and CIA were forced to take the main brunt as a failure of intelligence agencies. Truth is, these guys down in Florida, the company where those guys tested the plane simulators? THEY DID CALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. Being handed cash made them suspicious, and the situation was investigated.
A lot of small links to these guys were investigated. But there was a general doctrine that Bush was trying to enforce. Remember how they stipulate they were adhering to Clinton's policy in dealing with terrorism?
One of the things was leaving Bin Laden alone. He was, regardless of everything, Saudi Royalty. This part bothers the hell out of me. I'm not saying Clinton left Bin Laden alone, but one of the general understandings in the CIA and FBI was to NOT ACTIVELY INVESTIGATE BIN LADEN. When Bush came aboard, this policy was reinforced. It went from being not "encouraged" to "DON'T DO IT" Seems agencies would find ties to Saudi money or something, and it would damage relations with Saudi Arabia, which was already slipping. Always about oil.
So FBI DID had reports on these people. Not all of them, but some were arrested, or in the case of that one car, pulled over on a Baltimore Highway. Others did interesting things that were reported. Puzzle pieces were coming together.
Agents would file their reports and give them to surpervisers who handed them up, and they reached a point where they went no further. That policy above. Politics.
So, that is part of Clarke's big beef. We had the intel. He saw it. But we didn't do enough to act on it. We did not take enough proactive measures to act on it. We just let... nature take it's course. So he blames himself and the government for failing the people.
And it becomes the blame game. The GOP is attacking him, because this could change tide, or at least take credibility from the President. If people believe what Clarke says, that is true. Leaves them with the either/or choice. "Do I stick with the Republican who might have been lying to me, or go with a Democrat who might be different." No sign the situation will be better. Democrats are banking on it, Republicans trying to descredit it.
Based on what I know, watched, read, and come across, Clarke is telling the truth. I think it addresses one of the questions that always dogged me. You know, being in Afghanistan, and suddenly going to Iraq. Only person who wanted us there was Bush. I was working at Fort Meade, and other reporters, officers, whatnot simply did not understand the logic, but they knew better than to question it. This was their job and livelihood.
But it seems Bush was not just grasping at straws, but looking for any reason to go to war with Iraq. Was it Clarke, or someone else, who said that upon day one of coming into office, Bush made it his agenda of having his people come up with plans for attacking Iraq. Problem was, they had no crucial reason, did they? 9/11 helped, but not that much, then he comes and says intel suggests Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. No weapons found. Must be bad intel.
Is Iraq better with Saddam? Clarke was asked that question. They are, but at the same time, Clarke raised a good point, we fell into Bin Laden's propaganda trap. He had been arguing about how the US wanted to take over the Middle East and control oil. We invaded Iraq, and were having a majority of control over how it's ruling body was going to work out, and, to be honest, I am still confused on why gas prices are high.
Interesting that we invade a major oil producing country, and our President owns oil refineries in Texas, and yet gas cost more than ever.
As for Clarke publishing his book. He writes people his views. He tells them what happened. He has more credibility than most politicians, because his job is to keep people safe. Anyways, if he wants to make a few bucks, fine. I think more than not, he wants to put a blunt in Bush's campaign, because he does not trust him to protect Americans here or abroad, and he has stated as much.
As for 9/11 members who blast Clarke. They are victims themselves. I do feel for them. This opens some old wounds that... I am not sure Clarke wanted to open or not. Can't state his stance on that. He apologized for the government and himself failing them, but speaking of it indicates it as preventable, when these people are trying to move on with their lives.
You know, seeking solace in relgion, or finding answers that "It was God's Will" or their time. Whateever. then saying that maybe it was because someone wasn't doing their job. Or a lot of people weren't doing their job. It fractures illusion that people are safe, and makes them angry. Kind of like saying God isn't real. They won't think God isn't real, they will hate you for being the deliverer of bad news. You know the old line: Don't kill the mailman.
