That audacious Richard Clarke

The Bush-Cheney campaign is riding a rickety horse to November: Their approach to war on terror.

Topics: 2004 Elections, Al-Qaida, Iraq war, Dick Cheney

Evoking those steamy, fear-filled days of August 1814, Washington is again hot, bothered and praying for rain. This time, it is not a British army running the White House administration out of town. Instead, it is the compelling, courageous and stubborn revelations of longtime administration terrorism guru Richard Clarke.

His book, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror,” was submitted to the administration for review over six months ago. It sets out how the Bush administration came to office obsessed with Saddam Hussein, put al-Qaida on the back burner and, after 9/11, used that event to implement a long-held plan to go into Baghdad. That the administration approved Clarke’s book for release may have been a White House oversight, or even a tactical miscalculation.

But it is not only the book itself, but Clarke’s temperate, calm, and knowledgeable public presentation of the facts that has frightened the White House to its very core.

The Bush-Cheney campaign is riding a single horse to November: Their approach to war on terror. More and more, it seems the White House takes its war on terror about as seriously as it takes its war on steroids.

We might have known this earlier. In early 2000, Condoleezza Rice explained the Bush approach to security in Foreign Affairs magazine. In an article containing almost 7,000 words on national security, she mentions terrorism only five times: four in terms of rogue states like Iraq, and one referring to Chechnya. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, having repeatedly attacked U.S. military and diplomatic facilities and killed Americans in the 1990s, and against whom President Clinton had retaliated militarily, warranted not a single mention by the future national security advisor.

Bush himself has repeatedly confirmed Clarke’s facts. The Bush-Cheney ticket has proven to be willfully blind to how terrorism works and, consequently, how it can be reduced or eliminated. It is a strange cold fact that human and physical resources were prematurely and carelessly shifted from the effort to root out al-Qaida in Afghanistan to fuel the long-favored neoconservative goal of rooting out Saddam Hussein in Iraq.



The president and vice president do not deny that Saddam Hussein’s rule was always a bigger thorn in their side than the decentralized and difficult-to-target al-Qaida. This is public knowledge, contained in late 1990s publications of future Bush political appointees, and in Bush-friendly books like Bob Woodward’s “Bush at War” and David Frum’s “The Right Man.”

At one time, Saddam Hussein, like current dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, served a useful purpose. The future of Iraq might have evolved, under its own power through domestic reformers, in the pattern of post-Suharto Indonesia. Suharto, a former ally, was dictator for 30 years, was accused of genocide and murder of his own citizens, and was recently awarded the title of “most corrupt leader in modern history,” beating out Ferdinand Marcos and Mobutu Sese Seko. A lot like Saddam Hussein, without the WMD. Which is to say, a lot like Saddam Hussein.

Our current deputy secretary of defense and lead soprano in the “topple Saddam” choir, Paul Wolfowitz, knows the Suharto story better than anyone. As U.S. ambassador to Indonesia under Reagan, he was a strong advocate for the U.S.-Indonesia alliance. Over a decade later, in May 1997, Wolfowitz still sang Suharto’s praises to Congress, noting that “progress [on human rights] has to be credited to the strong and remarkable leadership of President Suharto.” In two years, the reformers had taken back Indonesia in a conflicted, but democratic, process.

It’s too bad that Wolfowitz couldn’t recognize and grant the same possibilities for Iraq under Hussein. But then again, perhaps he saw that possibility of change from within all too clearly, hence the urgency of a new U.S. friendly puppet government in Baghdad.

Clarke accurately describes the Cold Warriors in the Bush administration with “It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier.” I and many others observed the same thing, at a lower level within the Pentagon.

The White House faces a grave and growing danger. Its attack machine is activated against Clarke, but, preferring character assassination over basic truth, it will be hard to sustain. Clarke’s public stance of honor and credibility has real staying power, and it has already inspired and heartened both new witnesses and the mainstream media to seek and reveal the truth.

This truth is damaging to that single horse the administration is riding in this election race. The economy, the budget, the debt, veterans’ benefits, military readiness, Medicare and social security crises, education, immigration — all are issues where the administration has sorely disappointed conservatives like me, as well as liberals and independents, in every state. If the war-on-terror horse stumbles, the administration falls.

In 1814, grace prevailed in the form of a rare and unpredicted tornado that arrived while the city burned on the afternoon of Aug. 25:

“The tornado tore through the center of Washington and directly into the British occupation … The collapsing buildings and flying debris killed several British soldiers. Many of the soldiers did not have time to take cover from the winds and they laid face down in the streets. One account describes how a British officer on horseback did not dismount and the winds slammed both horse and rider violently to the ground.”

The rains that followed put out the fires, and much was saved.

The audacious Mr. Clarke is for all Americans a modern sign of grace, of the power of truth over deception, and of courage over cowardice. May the strong winds blow and the rain come down in Washington, and again save our Republic.

Karen Kwiatkowski now lives in western Virginia on a small farm with her family, teaches an American foreign policy class at James Madison University, and writes regularly for militaryweek.com on security and defense issues.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>