Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Former chief terrorist advisor Richard Clarke shocked America when he unleashed full-fledged political warfare against the Bush administration during a 60 Minutes telecast last week. After years of silence, Clarke came out firing serious charges and accusations against President Bush and his advisors, accusing them of irresponsibly ignoring terrorist threats. Essentially, Clarke has laid all blame on the administration for what happened on Sept. 11.
One enormous problem, however, lingers around Clarke and his allegations: there is absolutely no evidence to prove his statements to be true, and in all actuality, an overwhelming body of evidence does just the opposite.
Christopher Shays, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, submitted several letters in frustration over Clarke’s “narrow view” on terrorism when responding to more than serious questions during a series of meetings in the last year of the Clinton administration. According to Shays, Clarke said “it would be silly to believe a comprehensive strategy could be developed to combat terrorism.” After extensive questioning, the committee concluded that the information provided to them was “less than useful.” The committee also expressed serious concerns about what $12.9 billion, tended to be spent combating terrorism, WMDs preparedness, and critical infrastructure protection, was being used for.
One of these letters was sent to Condoleezza Rice in January, 2001 expressing concerns about Dick Clarke and his committee. Coincidentally, Rice demoted Clarke from his position as counterterrorism adviser. Though being demoted after many years on the job, and excluded from several important meetings, Clarke was still respected by the Bush administration. Consequently, Clarke praised President Bush for being a great leader against terrorism up until the day of his resignation. In effect, Clarke’s own statements from 2002 refute every argument that he has made. In his resignation letter, Clarke praised Bush for his “courage, determination, calm and leadership” on Sept. 11. He also said that it was an “enormous privilege” to serve President Bush.
Though Clarke said that he was just being polite, he issued press releases that were consistent with his 2002 resignation letter, and if that isn’t enough, he praised Bush, under oath, in his testimony to Congress in 2002. He has made two clashing arguments under oath and is walking the fine line of perjury.
Clarke’s conflicting statements are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many statements and letters on file that show Clarke to be senseless when it came to a terrorist threat. Even some higher-ups in the Clinton administration have had conflicts with Clarke. Of all people, Clinton’s speech writer, Dick Morris, said that he inserted language into speeches that discussed handling terrorism and rogue states such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Libya, at Clinton’s request. Each time, Clarke’s committee would delete the language from the speeches during their review.
It is clear that Clarke is trying to save himself from serious turmoil by attacking President Bush’s credibility. Should the Sept. 11 investigations conclude that Clarke failed to do his job, serious consequences could follow.
Clarke’s statements have disrupted the Sept. 11 proceedings and are having an influence on the presidential election. With Sen. John Kerry in the White House, Dick Clarke could get his old job back and stand alongside his best friend and colleague, Rand Beers, who is the top foreign policy adviser for the Kerry campaign. Beers and Clarke go way back. They even taught classes together at Harvard.
It is obvious that Clarke resorted himself to playing the left-wing puppet, and if Kerry starts to defend Clarke, every future comment he makes has the ability to backfire.
Mike Servis is a freshman political science major.
