Richard Clarke's testimony to Wednesday's 9/11 Commission Hearings:
"I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.
To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed.
And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
Everyone seems to be very impressed with this apology. I can understand the liberals going gaga over this. After all, they probably are ready to forgive Bin Laden if only he comes out and apologizes for attacking us.
The truth is this is not apology but an insult to everyone's intelligence. An honest person who really believes that he or she shares responsibility in failing to prevent those horrific attacks would have a hard time living with himself/herself. That person would not have waited over three years to speak out publicly or to write a book. That person would not have been accentuating the positive efforts of a supposedly failed administration over those three and half years. That person would not have waited until a presidential election is in full swing.
It is very transparent what he is doing: "The September 11 was avoidable, I share some responsibility in failing not being able to avoid it. I worked really hard to get others in the administration to listen to me but I failed. Still, I am the only one who takes responsibility and the only one who apologizes for it. I worked hard on it. If only the administration officials who had other priorities had listened to me..." It is a great ploy to divert attention from himself. This guy was in charge of counter-terrorism during the Clinton years when we were attacked every other year. He probably was focused on putting a positive spin on Clinton administration's actions at that time too.
"CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting Al Qaida, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration."
He still is putting a positive spin on Clinton administration's actions. Fighting terrorism and the Middle East peace process received the highest priority in Clinton administration. No wonder they both turned out to be miserable failures. Good thing that administration had not put other vital issues in the same priority category.
"CLARKE: ...I thought cybersecurity was and I still think cyber security is an extraordinary important issue for which this country is very underprepared. And I thought perhaps I could make a contribution if I worked full time on that issue."
As one of my earlier posts indicated, he was focused on this issue. He was wrong then he is wrong now. Osama did not launch a cyberattack!
"CLARKE: I do. I think the think that's obviously bothering you is the tenor and the tone. And I've tried to explain to you, sir, that when you're on the staff of the president of the United States, you try to make his policies look as good as possible."
Now he can sit there with a straight face and offer his bogus apology... If he really believed what he is saying and writing now, he would not have stayed with this administration even a minute, let alone try to make their policies look good.
Now let's cut to the chase. Clarke's biggest complaint, his reason to write the book, was the war in Iraq wasn't it? Here is how he puts it:
""...And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq -- something I was not asked about by the commission, it's something I chose write about a lot in the book -- by invading Iraq the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism. "
Let's see what he was saying back in 1998:
Policy Conference at Lansdowne Conference Center October 16, 1998
"Part of dealing with weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, however, is preventing the terrorists from obtaining these weapons. Although we are preparing to deal with the consequences of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, the president adopted a policy that the United States will not accept a situation in which terrorist groups have acquired or procured weapons of mass destruction. When people complain about the United States blowing up the ibuprofen factory in Sudan, they should remember that policy."
Back in 1998 we believed Iraq possessed WMDs. If 9/11 happened back in 1998 and we suspected that Iraq may pass WMD's or WMD know-how to Al Qaida, would Clinton administration have lobbed a few missiles to Iraq? Would Clarke have been upset about it? They actually did strike Iraq at the time. The operation was called
Desert Fox and the stated mission of the operation was 'To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction.' Did that operation undermine Clinton's high priority fight against terrorism?
