Rating: 
Summary: No credibility...
Review: I'm curious why all of these reviewers that are praising Clarke as a great patriot and a hero, have not questioned his accomplishments as the counter-intelligence czar. What did he counter? Mansoor Ijaz, who brokered the deal to extradite bin Laden from the Sudan and again out of Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2000, says that "Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again". Mansoor also added that Clarke's accounts were "absolutely disingenuous; it comes very close to flat-out lying." Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has also stated "Clarke's testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book, he's either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It's one or the other." Richard Clarke has absolutely no credibility, and that will be proven when his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee is declassified. Don't waste your money on a fictional account by another disgruntled employee.
Rating:
Summary: CNN: "Clarke...lied under oath."
Review: So a liar wrote a book. Does this mean that everything Clarke said is a lie or just some of it? Did Clarke lie only once and if he did should we believe anything else he says because he lied only once or do you doubt everything he says because liars are liars and can't be trusted? Does one liar make a person a perpetual liar or just a solo liar? In anycase at least we know that Clarke is a unqualified liar!
Rating:
Summary: WASTE OF MONEY
Review: No facts. Obviously just an attempt to attack a heroic President. You can skip this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Best autobiography of counter intelligence director
Review: I may have a different perspective on the book as I work in the same field as Clarke does. I have also met Clarke on a number of occasions and he certainly is not a flake. Forget the controversy over Clarke's reported criticisms of Bush. Clarke praises Bush far more than he criticizes and his complaint is that the war against Iraq diverted resources from the true war on terror. Like what would you expect a director of counter intelligence to say? There would have been no need for controversy if the spindoctors of the GOP had not tried to pretend that Clinton had neglected Al Qaeda and that it was Bush who had realized their true importance long before 9/11. The most interesting chapter of the book for most readers is probably the first when Clarke describes being in charge of the response to 9/11. Bush comes off much better in this account than most others I have read. Clarke does contradict the mythological account that has been given since, but that is not surprising as it never made much sense. Far more interesting for me is the information on modern terrorist movements, in particular al Qaeda. There is far more detail in this book than there is anywhere else in the public domain. What Clarke is doing here is trying to change the direction of counter-terrorism back to the Clinton policy, only with an even higher priority. He also gives plenty of tactical information for others to battle the bureaucracy, how the Pentagon will try to sink your plan to snatch a terrorist in Sudan by refusing to provide any plan that amounts to less than a full invasion, how the CIA will waste months refusing to fly an *armed* predator aircraft purpose built to take out Bin Laden for stupid reasons. The attacks on Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld basically amount to claiming that they saw terrorism as exclusively the result of state sponsorship. This explains (but does not excuse) the wierd obsession with Iraq. Clarke, like most European analysts believes that there is not only no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11, there is no reason to believe that any state was supporting al Qaeda (the Taleban certainly did not, al Qaeda supported THEM). Clarke's analysis will probably seem obvious to anyone who has studied European terrorist groups such as the IRA, ETA, Bader-Meinhof and Gladio. Although each of these groups are known to have received weapons, training and money from state sponsors from time to time few people seriously believe that the groups could not have existed without it. Counter-terrorism in the US was very different since the main terrorist threat was state sponsored. During the cold war the US and the USSR engaged in a series of proxy wars where both sides were using tactics the other (and most independent observers) would describe as terrorism. Clarke describes how this situation changed completely after the cold war ended. First there was the Oaklahoma city bomb which very was very clearly an act of domestic terror. It is possible that Nichols and McVeigh had help from additional sources but we know they made their own explosives and that they robbed banks to buy the material. Nichols may have received training who was in the Philippines at the same time as a known Al Qaeda operative. Where I do depart somewhat from Clarke is that I think he takes their ideology rather too seriously as their motivation. I know that sounds wierd when the guys are committing suicide, but I think it would probably be better to think of al Qaeda as a cult lead by psychopaths. My experience of these groups is that when their ideology gets in the way of their goals they change the ideology to something more convenient.
Rating:
Summary: The rightwingers stroke out...
Review: I wonder if there's ever been a book in Amazon's history that's been reviewed by so many people who clearly never held it in their hands. All you angry white guys stroking out over this book...take your blood pressure meds, buy a copy, and read it. All the bogus claims that you heard from Rush and Sean are just pure BS... maybe you should consider the facts? All your ranting about the "aspirin factory" just proves what Clarke says in the book, that Clinton was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. Clarke notes that the CIA got an agent to the "aspirin factory" and tests confirmed it had been making a nerve gas precursor....not something you find in aspirin, usually. Rush must have forgotten to mention this, somehow... Speaking as someone who read the book from cover to cover, I found it very well written, very solidly documented, and obviously quite important. It won't change any minds on the right, but for the other 60% of Americans, this book couldn't have come out at a better time. Read it, think about it, make up your own mind. Something our fellow citizens on the far right seem to be totally incapable of doing.
Rating:
Summary: Just a *FEEL GOOD* book
Review: If you are looking for someplace to vent your frustrations and want to blame someone, anyone, even if that party is not responsible then I suppose this book and the outrageous, unfounded charges against our President are as good as any. It may make you feel better, but it won't change anything. Looking for a *feel good book* this may help make you feel good, albeit temporarily untill the truth comes out. This guy lied under oath. Does that tell you something?
Rating: 
Summary: Actual book review of Against All Enemies
Review: ... I purchased it and read it in a day; it is a very quick read. I found the book a very engrossing and well written chronology of the counter-terrorism efforts of the past two decades from a first-hand participant, especially the first chapter which gives a fascinating description of the events on 9/11 about all our government agencies and how they coordinated to prevent further carnage. While there is ample criticizm to go around about the intelligence failures of the Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 42 administrations. The events detailed in the book are consistent with facts readily available to the public from many sources. Mr. Clarke shows in the book how his interest was not loyalty to a specific political party or administration, it was a loyalty to the country and to fulfill the duties of the job to which he was assigned. ... We, the American public, owe it to ourselves to remain informed rather than accepting what one or two news sources tell us. For those less affected by blind party affiliation (conservative or liberal), I challenge you to read the book for yourself and judge the book on its merits. It is the least we owe to John O'Neill and the 3,000 who died on 9/11.
Rating:
Summary: Republicans are Funny...
Review: How many people have to come out saying the same thing?
Are they all liars? DiIlulio? O'Neill? Clarke? Think Whitman didn't quit in disgust? Sorry, at some point, the attempts to discredit become discredited themselves, and in the case of Clarke are counter productive. This adminsitration is incredibly defensive which only adds to Clarke's credibility. What's happening here is unprecidented. I hope you people wake up before November. This presidency has been a disaster for this country on every conceivable level. It's damage control at this point.
Rating:
Summary: Please read the book before buying it!
Review: Apparently a ton of people have given this piece of worthless junk five stars without even reading the book. There comments prove that they have not read the book. They are giving it five stars only because they are paid shills. And paid shills are supposed to give raving five star reviews as well as give unhelpful votes to anything that disagrees with the book. So please read the book first before wasting your money and buying it and oce you have read it, you will know what i mean about the "paid shills." Oh, after reading the book, take a nice shower with lots of soap and water to rinse off that slimey feeling you will have once you "get" the real purpose behind this book. I read it at Borders in their coffee shop. Best part was the chic I met and the iced tea. The book.......phew--IT STINKS!
Rating:
Summary: Lets focus on the *truth* now
Review: There were more than 6 bombings during Clintons term in office. Pres. Clinton had the opportunity to take out bin Laden but refused to. Had Clinton taken action, 911 never would have happened. Clarke served under Clinton. If Clarke is so great and Clinton was so great why did they let bin Laden slip away and cause the worst catastrope since Pearl Harbor??
| 
