Hot Air » Blog Archive » Richard Clarke: Success is failure

Richard Clarke: Success is failure

posted at 4:09 pm on August 11, 2006 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

From the man who apologized for missing the signs before 9-11-01:

Clarke said the near miss of an attack potentially more lethal than those of Sept. 11, 2001, “reminds us of the failure of the Bush administration to improve our homeland security, including aviation security.”

It wasn’t exactly a near-miss, at least not in the usual meaning of that term. The suspects had been under watch for months. They were rounded up now because they were about to go within a few days. Had they gotten the trigger word two weeks ago, they would have been rounded up two weeks ago. If it had been a month from now, a month from now we would be hearing about it. The UK had a mole on the inside, good intel from the US and the ability to stop the plot even though it had connections far outside the UK. And the bottom line is, the planned attack was foiled. That’s a pretty good failure if you ask me. And it does suggest that some security policies are indeed working, as is the transatlantic alliance.

What Clarke is suggesting is that even in stopping terrorism, we fail. You stop it, you’ve failed. You don’t stop it, you’ve failed. It’s literally a no-win situation he’s setting up. And he used to be the country’s go-to guy on anti-terrorism.

What Clarke is now, is one more argument to keep every Democrat as far from the levers of national security power as possible. The Republicans aren’t perfect, but at least they’re not–literally–defeatocrats.

(h/t bwb)

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

No credit will be given to either Bush’s or Blair’s administration for any progress in the war against radical islam (or whatever you want to call it). We might as well just get used to that and start hammering defeatists like Clarke from the get go.

Bob's Kid on August 11, 2006 at 4:18 PM

Whatever, DICK. Go crawl back under your rock. You’re just mad you didn’t know before and get the chance to leak the info the the NYT. What a useless tool. The biggest mistake Bush made was keeping Clarke on when he took office.

NTWR on August 11, 2006 at 4:23 PM

Here’s another bizarro idea- The left believes that the US in fighting terrorism creates more terrorists, but when terror plots are uncovered, the left questions the timing and does not believe that the plots are real.

rw on August 11, 2006 at 4:24 PM

If the Bush administration somehow ended all terrorism forever, these same people would claim it as a failure. They would argue that the vacuum left by the absence of terrorism has opened the door for some other unspeakable evil.

Rick on August 11, 2006 at 4:30 PM

If the Bush administration somehow ended all terrorism forever, these same people would claim it as a failure.

No, they would say that “the movement was about to run out of steam as a natural course of events, and President Bush had nothing to do with it.” At least that is the leftist view of Ronald Reagan defeating the Soviet Union. According to the lefties, the USSR was about to collapse under it’s own weight anyway and Reagan didn’t do anything.

Perhaps we have reached “1984″: good is bad, success is failure, Richard Clarke is an idiot. Oh wait, that last one is true.

Mallard T. Drake on August 11, 2006 at 4:49 PM

The transatlantic alliance was always great, in spite of the ‘official’ spin for the consumption of the European socialist and “I feel inferior and jealous to/of the only superpower” masses. The cooperation has and continues to be incredibly strong on the fight against terror.

Imagine if Mr. Chirac would represent a superpower. Years of sheer grand waste, he is. And he’s the conservative over there!

This is the most important task we have from now until Nov. 2006, and then after:

…he used to be the country’s go-to guy on anti-terrorism.

What Clarke is now, is one more argument to keep every Democrat as far from the levers of national security power as possible. The Republicans aren’t perfect, but at least they’re not–literally–defeatocrats.

Thank goodness Clarke is the ‘used to be’…better sooner than later to discover such political egomaniacs who put their zeal ahead of country and survival.

Entelechy on August 11, 2006 at 4:50 PM

Normal, sane people know Clarke is an idiot. He was canned because his track record as a “terrorism guru” was abyssmal. If he’s such an “expert” then he would have known all about the 9-11 plot which had been in the works for years and stopped it before Bush even took office. Buh Bye Dick, the dustbin of history is awaiting you.

darwin on August 11, 2006 at 5:02 PM

That damn George Bush and his anti-terrorism policies, it is his fault that we’ve been attacked over and over again here in the United States since 9/11! Oh, wait a minute we haven’t been attacked here since 9/11 and that is because of solid Democrat leadership in the war on terror, despite Bush’s poor policies.

Rememeber they voted for the war in Iraq before they voted against it!

Umnumzana on August 11, 2006 at 5:06 PM

Speaking of national security, has anyone heard an official response from the “Freshmaker” Lamont on the Brit terror plot?

darwin on August 11, 2006 at 5:21 PM

Clarke’s stories change like the weather. The story depends on whether it suits him at the time, or not.

Clarke. The perfect democrat.

DannoJyd on August 11, 2006 at 5:25 PM

Clarke reminds me of one of my donk sisters, who told me after Al Gore’s concession in 2000: “Of course, you realize that as far as I’m concerned, George Bush can do no right.”

To which my response was, “And of course, you realize that means I don’t have to take anything you say about him seriously.”

What reflexive BDS sufferers don’t understand is that when all they do is carp, carp, carp about everything George Bush does and doesn’t do, and everything George Bush says and doesn’t say, they strike non-BDS sufferers as nothing but a bunch of self-deluded, self-important, infantile whiners.

Clarke and his ilk seem to have never learned a basic lesson of life that most of the rest of us figured out on the elementary-school playground: people hate whiners. They never seem to realize that the look of disgust that others have when listening to their petulant sulking isn’t directed at George Bush, but at them.

Which goes a long way, incidentally, toward explaining their lack of electoral success in 2002 and 2004. And why their premature celebrating about November, 2006 is just that.

And they call themselves “the reality-based community.” What more elegant proof is there of just how out of touch they really are?

Spurius Ligustinus on August 11, 2006 at 5:30 PM

When Clarke was in charge, we were attacked.

He’s no longer in charge now, and we foiled an attack.

Speaks volumes to me.

Clarke is a failure. And a moron.

We don’t need any Clarke’s in intel gathering.

Kini on August 11, 2006 at 5:31 PM

Defeatocrats is waaaaay too polite. Call them what they are: vile, insane, evil incarnate Demonrats. Hey, it’s even almost spelled excatly the same as they name they prefer to use.

RobertHuntingdon on August 11, 2006 at 5:45 PM

It seems that Clarke’s book got enough favorable press from the MSM at the time that it was tough for me to just dismiss him out of turn. (I wasn’t as aware of the blogosphere then as I am now!)

At the time I talked with a friend who was convinced that, unlike some on the looney left, Richard Clarke was “a common-sense guy talking sense” on several “key points”. (I don’t remember what they were; it was more the overall feeling of ‘lingering credibility’ that remained.) That’s why I’m wondering:

1. Is there anything Clarke did well, or said/phrased properly, in recent memory? AFAIK this friend is still convinced that, despite some clumsy errors, Richard Clarke was still basically “telling the truth” in his book. (No opinion from me since I didn’t read the thing.)

2. Are there any good or preferred resources for fisking Richard Clarke’s oeuvre / persona?

If the guy is as dirty and “exposed” as conventional blog wisdom suggests, then I’m hopeful.

RD on August 11, 2006 at 6:22 PM

If (God forbid) this terror plot had been successful, guess who the lefty BDS crowd would be blaming for it?

Bush is damned if he does and damned if he don’t.

speed647 on August 11, 2006 at 10:22 PM

I’ve been looking all over for a good place to use this:
“Richard Clarke is a good candidate for a Cranial Liposuction.”

Doug on August 12, 2006 at 1:29 AM

What reflexive BDS sufferers don’t understand is that when all they do is carp, carp, carp about everything George Bush does and doesn’t do, and everything George Bush says and doesn’t say, they strike non-BDS sufferers as nothing but a bunch of self-deluded, self-important, infantile whiners.

And they call themselves “the reality-based community.” What more elegant proof is there of just how out of touch they really are?

Spurius Ligustinus, you’re right on the money.

georgej on August 12, 2006 at 4:44 AM

Richard Clarke is so smart! Even the demorats picked John kerry over this nutcase!

gary on August 12, 2006 at 7:39 AM

(God forbid) this terror plot had been successful, guess who the lefty BDS crowd would be blaming for it?

Bush is damned if he does and damned if he don’t.

speed647 on August 11, 2006 at 10:22 PM

You’re right, but let’s be fair: the Bushies claim credit for our (praise God) not being hit again. Well, take that to its logical conclusion. Sauce for the goose….