Exposing Clarke

By Paul Conroy

The Democrats have now determined that attacking President Bush’s ‘War on Terrorism’ is the way to highlight John Kerry’s ability to be not only a leader in the United States, but also in the International arena.  They have chosen this tactic despite the fact that he did, but didn’t support the supplemental spending to help fight the war on terrorism, and of course the additional aid to our troops (he so identifies with). Well Johnny failed again, and he can’t take back his ‘NO VOTE.’ His flip-flops are truly so insincere and dishonest, that he doesn’t even know where he stands on any given day. I’m sure he thought the ‘anti-war’ movement, which he is clearly familiar with, was going to pick up steam. However since it hasn’t, his ingenious hacks have decided to go the way of Dick Clarke.

Here is, in theory, how it is suppose to work.  Clarke, a long-time thirty-year civil servant, who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats and claims to be a Republican, is speaking out against President Bush.  Ok, so on balance it appears he would have some objective credibility when it comes to observing and judging the current and past administrations’ ability and effectiveness of the war on terrorism.  During the Clinton years he was in-fact the point man on terrorism. Now being Clinton’s point man one should think Clarke was well aware of Al-Queada and UBL, himself being more aggressive than the rest of the Clinton crew. 

Actually Clarke admits Clinton’s administration failed to go after the terrorist when clearly the Jihad had started. This failure resulted in the East African Embassy bombing, and continuing with the first attack on the Trade Towers and then the USS Cole.  If he is so high-minded, why didn’t he make it an issue that the Clinton crew would not be able to turn away from instead of failing not only the citizens of this country but also the rest of the world. Now granted, we all know the Clinton’s approach was appeasement and capitulation.  It’s rather ironic that Boy Clinton has stayed out of the fray on this issue.  

Interesting that Clark has written a book that criticizes President Bush’s actions to stop the terrorists when he had the knowledge and opportunity to try an prevent the attacks years before Bush took office. Clarke, ever the opportunist, writes this book, that is simply a tool for the Kerry camp to enter into the fray of questioning the President’s campaign on terror thus far.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence that Clarke has written this book after not receiving the number two spot under Tom Ridge at the Department of Homeland Security. Or perhaps it is not a coincidence - just that he is behaving like a child on a playground who was last picked to play kick ball. The problem is the stakes are much greater in this game. Not only has Clark sharpened his pencils and tried to tattle on those who have treated him badly, but also he has made the media rounds.  On 60 minutes Clarke claimed, ‘he was dragged into the President’s office’ and then continues on that the President wanted to point the blame at Iraq.  Well, didn’t we all think Iraq first? All of this is to Kerry’s glee for it has given him new material for his anti-war campaign.

Clarke claims he was pushed out, he left, he didn’t get what he wanted, so consequently he decided to write a book, that by all accounts runs counter intuitive to his own personal belief, that not only Al-Queada was a threat, but that the previous administration did not do enough.  Not only should his own word be seriously scrutinized but also his personal agenda. 

Paul David Conroy is Senior partner at the T.E.M. Consulting Group.  www.temgroup.org

Back to column

Home