Getting the Point on Clarke

Beween the hysteria and smoke screens the right has been spitting out regarding Richard Clarke--the ridiculous charges launched by Bill the cat killer Frist (since retracted, at least in part. See TalkingPointsMemo for more), the question of whether or not he was ever "really a member of the fort," etc. etc., two conclusions can be drawn. First, the Bush team is capable of behavior equalled only by petulant little children. Second, as the Washington Post points out, they are desperately obscuring an important point: Clarke's major criticism regards the Bush beeline towards Iraq in the wake of the 9/11 attacks:

John F. Lehman, a Republican member of the 9/11 commission, put it bluntly to former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke when he testified publicly last week: Why did his earlier, private testimony to the commission not include the harsh criticism leveled at President Bush in his book?

"There's a very good reason for that," Clarke replied. "In the 15 hours of testimony, no one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq. And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

Clarke, as befits his speciality, does not give the Clinton administration a free ride, as some suggest. On the contrary. What he DOES argue is that Bush diverted resources from the hunt for bin Laden in order to satisfy his craving for Saddam. He did this in spite of the fact that Iraq posed no threat. Now, we're stuck there, Iraq in it's present state is VERY MUCH A THREAT, and continues to cost us tremendously, in lives and money, while Al Qaeda has taken the time to regroup, as it were.

But 'regroup' is hardly the correct word. What's happening overseas is that independent cells, emboldened by each act of terror since 9/11, have taken their own initiatives. Bin Laden or al-Zawahri don't have to give the order. It is enough that they provide inspiration to the relatively small number of lunatics who, in spite of their numbers, can cause great damage, thanks to the easy availibility of weapons and explosives.

On Other Fronts

Donald Rumsfeld explained the finer minutiae regarding just why he felt no sense of responsibility for 9/11--it was a law enforcement issue, says Rummy--which mustn't exactly sound heroic or particularly noble to a group of four women (thanks to Steve Soto for the link) who almost by themselves are responsible for the fact that we're learning ANYTHING at all about the Bush policy of "leave bin Laden alone." For more on this, check out this very long but thorough timeline--also courtesy of Steve--which should poke a giant hole in the thesis that 9/11 was 'unavoidable,' which has been the Bush tack from the beginning.

This Eric Boehlert piece in Salon discusses the testimony of Sibel Edmonds, a Turkish American who worked as a translator for the FBI. It's worth watching the ad for non-subscribers. While she's prevented from discussing particulars, her general picture presents an administration that ignored very specific threats involving the use of airplanes as weapons by Al Qaeda. Pretty damning allegations.

Balta found this in The Independent UK: US and British tax dollars are, in part, financing an enormous contingent of private "security personnel," i.e., mercenaries, many from South Africa. In other words, our occupation is not able to provide the kind of security necessary to protect individuals involved in the reconstruction effort. It's also a handy way to downplay casuality numbers, as these private forces don't show up in the body count.

Scroll down a little on Balta's page and you'll find this:

Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."

Further links are provided at the island.

One good bit of news comes out of Israel, where the country's chief prosecutor has recommended that Ariel Sharon be indicted for bribery. Maybe now we can add "common criminal" to "war criminal" when his name is brought up.

Last night I watched a replay of Bush's Radio and Television Correspondent's speech on C-Span. The look on his face when delivering his tasteless WMD "jokes" was priceless. He really doesn't get it. Between his joke about "hitting the trifecta," his crass remark of "bring em on," and this, I'd say that Bush has his three strikes. But he isn't out yet.

Signs of Bush's "success" in the war on terror include the new leader of Hamas calling Bush an "enemy of Muslims," while Thailand is now experiencing an upswing in Muslim terror. And, while not specifically linked to Islamic terror, the threat of renewed violence in Congo demonstrates clearly that there is a general breakdown in global order, no doubt helped by the fact that the UN is weaker than ever, thanks to our nose-thumbing at it.

The next few years will go a long way towards determining whether or not war will be considered the acceptable method of dealing with terror, or whether we adopt a fundamentally different strategy, which would involve attacking terrorists as opposed to countries. The latter method will require a level of understanding of the globe that Bush either doesn't have, or has rejected, namely, that NON-state terrorists are the threat, and conventional warfare is not a strategy that can deal with this threat. Other methods are needed. The Bush policy does little beyond fattening the already thick wallets of his friends in the fields of defense contracting and support services, and his oil buddies. This contributes NOTHING to the national security needs of the United States.

Finally: again, I'm running down to New Iberia to check up on my dad, who is still hospitalized. Maybe later this evening I'll have something to write, but the odds are even that this is the only post of the day.