|
The main focus seemed to be Iraq from the get-go. I don't know. A little self-serving. He is not critical at all of Clinton's efforts and paints Clinton as one who 'got it'.
Can this guy be trusted. Clarke take the opportunity in this book to make sure we know that he was one of the lone people trying to stop terrorism pre-9/11. After 9/11, they wanted the evidence to lead to Iraq and that's what the CIA ended up giving them. Overall and unfortunately, I don't think this is a book to get an accurate account of circa 9/11. Apparently, he opinions on the Bush Administration's action on Al Qaeda has not been entirely consistent.
From other accounts, I can probably believe Clarke's description of how the Iraq War began.Clarke's adoration of Clinton is not discreet. But then again I wouldn't trust a favorable-to-Bush account either. Yes. Also, Clarke defends nearly all of the decisions during the Clinton years - for instance, we could have probably gotten or killed Bin Laden but didn't because it was too dangerous. However the Bush administration's pre-9/11 terror prevention was obviously lacking.
Clarke paints a picture of Bush's advisors and cabinet being hardly interested in terrorism before 9/11. Evidently Clinton could do no wrong. Never trust people in government and politics is a good rule of thumb.
Although there have been and will be "intelligence failures", the book makes it clear that the Bush administration did not create an environment where objective analysis and warnings were encouraged, and then ignored them when they were forced to listen. At the time, I'm not sure I would have believed all of these claims and accusations, especially from someone wanting to sell a book. It is understatement to say Clarke was right.To put this into perspective, I voted for Bush both times and have no respect or trust whatsoever for the United Nations, so I am not another liberal democrat kicking Bush or the Republicans when they are down.but back to the book. It is amazing how very human mental errors and biases and opinions and arrogance can result in such pervasive, in this case, international, troubles. Just read the book and watch his TV appearances. Even if Bush had listened to the warnings, there was not enough information to know the nature, location and timing of the attack. On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair or accurate to blame the intelligence community for Iraq. That said, it is a good book and most, if not all, of what Clarke wrote about Bush and his administration, al-Qaida, Iraq, etc.
Richard Clarke was in a unique position with respect to terrorism and the US response to it. I didn't think 500 reviews was enough, so I thought I would add mine too.A few days ago I finished this much ballyhooed (is that a word). He is very partisan. a recipe for disaster. Clarke as "non-partisan", as I have seen in some places, are also an intelligence failure.
On 9/11, there was an "intelligence failure", especially the lack of collaboration between CIA and FBI. Although he rightly faults the Bush administration, his doting over Clinton's handling of al-Qaida is juvenile. I don't know this for sure, neither do you, but it is possible. It seems pointless to spend billions on intelligence if it is going to be ignored. He was at the forefront of the complete turnaround of the country's attitude toward the Iraq war, and time has only strengthened his claims of the pervasive bias and preconceived opinions held by the big guns in the Bush administration against Iraq, and their proclivity to invade, even before 9/11.
No justification for revealing what should have remained a private moment, seemed like a cheap shot. Yet his handling of Bush's mistakes are done with more rigor and condemnation, more partisanship. He explains away the Clinton administration's failure to kill Bin Laden and respond to other attacks as if Clinton was handcuffed and watched helplessly as the opportunity faded away, practically apologetic. But it is also true that if he had taken more interet in Bin Laden earlier, they might have been able to disrupt him enough to detect and prevent 9/11. I realize that in intelligence work you cannot wait until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you act, because the indisputable proof may be another 9/11, but the Bush administrations selective use of the evidence to support the invasion of Iraq was an "intelligence failure" of a different sort, and of a magnitude as bad or worse than 9/11 in terms of American lives and international turmoil. a little petty for a man like Clarke who served much of his career in high-ranking sensitive positions.
book and have the advantage of hindsight to appreciate it. He even takes a swipe at the first Bush and James Baker using private off the record comments that had nothing to do with nothing. He has a right to his opinion, and I do not disagree his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the whole thing, but again "non-partisan" doesn't hold water. I'm sure he has said things in confidence that he wouldn't want revealed in a book if it has no bearing on important issues.
has been confirmed by other reports and testimony and books, and most importantly, by the end result. There was nothing concrete to suggest a "clear and present danger" from Iraq, not even a "murky and present danger", and now we know why.Regarding the author, if you read this book and have seen any of his appearances on the networks (or YouTube), and if you have an objective bone in your body, you will see that any reference to Mr. But I have studied the matter to some degree, not listening to whistleblowers with book deals, but sticking to the facts about what they knew and when they knew it, what their mindset toward foreign policy was in general, and how the whole Iraq invasion came to life. Hmm.
Clarke shows that the eyes and ears of the Bush administration were shut; they were deaf, blind, and opinionated. Even though they presented a plausible scenario with Iraq assisting terrorists and so on, they could have used this same scenario to condemn and invade numerous countries. He didn't criticize Clinton for his fooling around with Lewinsky, which probably hamstrung him from taking strong action against Bin Laden, but he goes out of his way to criticize Baker and the first Bush over nothing.
This book starts with a thoughtful analysis of the rise of jihadism and Al Qaida and the U.S response to these in the years leading up to the September 11 attacks. Presidents in the department of defense from 1985 to 2003, and was the chair of the Counter-Terrorism Security Group from 1992-2003. history and politics at the turn of the millennium, then this book is absolutely required reading. This book was written in 2004, and at that time, the Bush administration was able to discredit Clarke, win re-election, and go on for 4 more years with their policies, completely ignoring anything Clarke had to say.
S. If you are serious about studying U.S. Then Clarke unleashes a scathing critique of the younger Bush administration's lack of interest in Al Qaida before the September 11 attacks, their weak response against Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and their blunder into war with Iraq.As of this writing in 2009, Clarke's arguments and analysis seem right on, and you are left wishing the government had listened to him, giving us a chance to prevent the 9/11 attacks, knock out Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaida training camps, and avoid our disastrous invasion of Iraq. Clarke looks great in retrospect, but at a critical time he was influential in government, he wasn't particularly persuasive. If anyone speaks with authority about the U.S.
Having just written that, I can imagine my conservative friends' eyes rolling - and that suggests the chink in Clarke's armor. Obviously however, you can't blame him for the bull-headedness of his adversaries in government, and his effectiveness in service to his country far out weigh his weaknesses. Richard Clarke served four U. So, during his three years with the younger Bush administration, Clarke was not able to bring anyone in power over to his side and get his ideas enacted. government's response to terrorism, and Al Qaida in particular, it is Clarke.
"Against All Enemies" is his memoir, with his eyewitness accounts and personal analysis of events and actions taken by the administrations he served. After that, he published this book just before the presidential election, and Bush won anyway. Clarke comes off as a genuine American hero with human faults, and his story is an essential contribution to the history of our time.
It's basically a stunning indictment of how we got here. As GWB packs up and leaves the White House tonight, this book will stand the test of time as the primary source of "what the hell happened to us." The first chapter of the book is among the very best thrillers you will ever consume -- the "situation room" scene is beyond Tom Clancy's wildest imaginings. It is eerie how the Bush team is so concerned with going after Saddam from the hours following 9/11. Richard Clarke is an American hero. He has no ax to grind here, just wants to go on the record with a true account of our disastrous, post "Mission Accomplished" blunders in foreign policy.
I can't give this book 5 stars--horror really isn't my genre, and I'm not a fan of depressing endings.Richard A. Very ugly. The best men do not want to govern their fellowmen." ~George E. W. True, but does it have to be so far in the other direction.If I had it to do over again, I'd read this in small doses instead of straight through. Bush. Clarke was a counterterrorism expert who served under 4 administrations--from Reagan through G. Politicians pursuing their own agendas, refusing to listen to advice that doesn't fit, being distracted from or prevented from taking action because of politics, etc., etc.One last quote: "It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected.
Against All Enemies tells about the war on terror, focusing primarily on what led up to 9/11 and the response to it.Otto von Bismarck said "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." (or something like that--I've seen it quoted several ways) and that's certainly true in this case. An even better quote might be the daffynition of Politics, n: Poly "many" + tics "blood-sucking parasites".It's ugly. MacDonald. It was way too infuriating and depressing to read all at once.
|
