The Clarke book

So, I’ve started reading Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies, and already the controversy surrounding the book has me nearly tongue-tied. There’s so much to respond to it’s incredible, so much pro-and-con back-and-forth I’ve read and I haven’t even read the book yet. I just don’t know how to respond.

One thing about the arguments against Clarke: none of them impress me so far. I think people did have legitimate concerns over Blinded by the Right; after all, the guy admits to lying to forward a political agenda, and that does kind of make his current statements on the political scene a bit suspect. As much as I’d like to believe him, I realize he’s not the most reliable source.

But the comments against Clarke just don’t seem to be making any sense.

• He’s bitter because he was demoted. Well, I can understand someone being bitter about being demoted if everything he says is true. And I can see someone writing a tell-all(most) book about it. That the book was written out of bitterness doesn’t mean what he says isn’t true, and until the contents are believably addressed on those grounds, his motivation doesn’t matter.
• He’s politically motivated. Like our current president, up for re-election, isn’t? Come on. Now, frankly, I think all politicians are politically motivated. They have to be and they should be. They are, after all, supposed to represent us. The question is not whether or not they are politically motivated but whether or not the arguments they make are realistic, rational, and true or intentional distortions of reality. Bush & Co. have a pretty dismal record when it comes to accurately representing reality. I don’t know about Clarke.
• The idea that anyone had any idea about 9/11 and didn’t do anything about it is offensive. Really? Then why have the Bushies made that allegation against Clinton and Kerry? They insist that both Democrats knew Al Qaeda was dangerous and refused to do anything substantive about it—which may or may not be true. But to try to dodge that criticism because it’s “offensive” when you’ve used the same brickbat against others seems to suggest you can’t answer the charge when it’s turned against you.
• Clarke is wrong: we took terrorism seriously. Then why was he demoted in the first place? “We decided terrorism was so serious we demoted the expert” just doesn’t parse logically, especially since it doesn’t appear someone was put over him.

All in all, these arguments attempt to kill Clarke’s credibility by questioning his motives. And sometimes motive is a reasonable question. But on the other hand, if you had the kind of experience Clarke apparently had—no one listening to you, and then thousands of lives being lost, and then watching the people who wouldn’t listen to you try to pin the blame on others—wouldn’t you be bitter and inclined to see them lose their jobs? Realistically speaking.

In some cases it’s his word against theirs; in others it’s his word and several witnesses against theirs; and in others it seems to be his word and documented evidence against theirs. And their word doesn’t hold up to well, in my opinion. And so far no one has offered any solid argument, insofar as an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. All they’ve offered is the automatic gainsaying of any proposition the other person makes, along with a few derisive noises and dismissive sniffles.

Oh: and refusal to testify before the 9/11 commission, which you have to admit doesn’t look very good.