BS detectors going off all over the goddam place….
I could be wrong, obviously, but I have feeling this guy is as ephemeral as a moth. Heâ€™ll be a footnote in two weeks and his book will be consigned to the remainder bins.
Iâ€™m sorry if this is a flip and lazy response. It is. I know it is. But the man hasnâ€™t demonstrated heâ€™s worth my time. He seems to me an arrogant self-aggrandizing phony.
Mark Steyn zeroes in on exactly what it is about Richard Clarke that bugs me.
No, it’s not because he’s criticizing pre-911 anti-terrorism failures. That’s what he’s supposed to do. Obviously there’s plenty of blame to go around. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton Administrations did a particularly bang-up job, although I’m willing to give both of them a pass for mistakes made before that dreadful date for the same reason I don’t blame FDR or Herbert Hoover for Pearl Harbor.
It’s this kind of nonsense that’s makes it hard for me to take the guy seriously.
The media were very taken by this passage from his book, in which he alerts Mr Bush’s incoming National Security Adviser to the terrorist threat: “As I briefed Rice on al-Qa’eda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, ‘Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden’s group, but it’s much more than that. It’s a network of affiliated terrorist organisations with cells in over 50 countries, including the US.’ “
Now, when I heard that Clarke had said that, every BS-detector in my head went off. Turns out my instincts were sound.
Clarke getting the impression that Rice wasn’t familiar with al-Qa’eda from her facial expressions is “BS”.
Totten getting the impression that Clarke is an “arrogant self-aggrandizing phony” is perceptive analysis.
Or..maybe that’s bullshit too…making it kind of hard to take the guy seriously.