Soapbox

Notably Lacking

The big story in the news this week is the furor caused by the revelations of Richard Clark, former terrorism expert to 7 presidents, including George W. Bush. In televised interviews and in his new book, Clark charges that the Bush team largely ignored his warnings about the imminent danger posed by al Quaeda in the months before the September 11th terrorist attacks. According to Clark, Condoleeza Rice, the National Security advisor seemed not to even have heard of bin Laden’s terrorist group.

Of course the White House flatly denies all of this, and has set their political dogs to maul Clark with a savagery that must make John Kerry nervous, knowing he surely is next.

The administration’s counterpoints against Clark are many and varied. Press secretary Scott MacClellan charges that Clark is a disgruntled opportunist because he retired over a year ago but is only now, “in the heat of the presidential campaign” coming out with these “irresponsible” statements. They complain that a friend of Clark works for the Kerry presidential campaign, so this clearly must make him biased. The point is also made that Clark worked for Bill Clinton for 8 years before September 11th, and only 9 months for George Bush, so clearly Clinton bears as much or more blame for any failure to stop the terrorists.

Any or all of these charges by the Bush administration may have merit. Clark’s timing of his revelations could be opportunistic, and despite the fact that he has faithfully served both Republican and Democratic administrations for over 30 years, it is possible he may suddenly have developed a bias against George Bush and his team.

Notably lacking in the White House response, however, is any actual refutation of the facts Clark presents. They attack his character, they question his motives, but so far not his facts. As with so many other issues, the Bush administration doesn’t seem to get it. Clark may, in fact, be disgruntled and opportunistic, and the Clinton administration may be guilty of the same intelligence failures that Bush is charged with. So what? Even if true, none of that means that George Bush and his team did not ignore warnings about the threat of al Quaeda terrorists in a single-minded pursuit of a war in Iraq.

Further evidence of how clueless the administration is to the real issue came when Dick Cheney said that Clark doesn’t know what he is talking about because actually he was “out of the loop” about the administration’s efforts to prevent terrorism.
This is their defense: that they keep the top expert in the world on terrorism threats “out of the loop” right before we get hit with the biggest terrorist attack in history! Does Cheney think this absolves them from something? Wake up and smell reality, guys!

Even the one specific and fact-based refutation of Clark’s charges manages to make George Bush look incompetent. Scott MacClellan says that one conversation Clark recounts between himself and the president in the Situation Room on September 12th 2001 can’t be accurate because logs show the president was never in the Sit room on that date.
Hmmm. Well, I have no reason to think they have doctored the White House logs, (other than the huge and growing list of lies already told by the president, but that’s another story) so it sounds like they may have something there. Still, think about it: the entire country was in crisis: people were terrified, planes were grounded, the world was in mourning and George Bush never went into the Situation Room? If that isn’t a situation, what the hell is?

I am not prepared to accept the words of Richard Clark as gospel truth, although I will be very interested to know what he says to the 9/11 commission today. It’s possible that Clark is a greedy opportunistic liar, despite a 30-year record that would seem to belie that charge. However, the Bush administration’s attacks on Clark are all too reminiscent of their attacks on Joseph Wilson. Wilson’s wife Valerie was exposed as an undercover CIA operative after he criticized the Bush administration for relying on what he says he told them was faulty intelligence information on Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear material for WMD. Rather than refute his facts, Wilson’s character was attacked. He was branded mentally unbalanced and a “disgruntled former employee”…but they never proved that what he said wasn’t true.

When you consider President Bush’s many efforts to block the 9/11 Committee from its very inception, one can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that just maybe, all this smoke over Dick Clark is an attempt to hide the fact that the man, disgruntled though he may be, is absolutely right!