Rating: 
Summary: Funny....
Review: No less than six bombings occurred during Pres. Clinton's "dynasty", the Sudan even offered Clinton bin Laden as far back as 1996, but Clinton refused because Clinton claims that bin Laden not performed any crimes on US soil (how about the 1993 bombing of the WTC Bill??) but people are attacking Bush because of 911 and the words from this modern day Judas (Clarke) who has actually lied under oath ala Clinton.Read this book only if you enjoy reading fiction. Like those two other anto Bush books that came out a few months ago, this book is enjoying some undeserved success because it is mostly a feel good book, and like those two other books will come crashing down real fast. Same your money. Wait untill it hits the used book stores which shouldn't take too long.
Rating: 
Summary: Very disturbing
Review: It really bothers me that the CIA, the FBI and even the White House have information prior to 911 attacks and did nothing. Funny how republicans made a big deal out of how Clinton could have taken out bin Laden but didn't but now that the shoe is on the other foot and the mumbling GWBII is under attack, how offensive they get. Take a look at the syupid 1 star reviews---give me break. Accept the facts and get a life.
Rating: 
Summary: You Read - You Decide
Review: My wife and I are halfway through this book and highly recommend it. Richard Clarke acted as the central crisis director immediately following the 9/11 attack and gives his readers the unique perspective of someone who was there. This is worth the price of the book in itself. It's bizarre how much controversy this book has generated. From Condoleezza Rice, who seems to want to talk to anyone, as long as it's not under oath, to other Amazon reviewers, who haven't even read the book but post multiple negative reviews citing all the administration's current talking points. If you want to get a real sense for what Clarke is saying and whether he can be trusted, read the book. I think you will find it dramatically different from what the media and the various pundits are saying.
Rating:
Summary: Clarke: "Bush didn't see terrorists threats as urgent."
Review: I found Clarke's book to be powerful and very articulate. His accusations that Bush had information that the terrorists were planning an attack on US soil and Bush did nothing is serious indeed and needs to be addressed.
Rating:
Summary: Focus on substance
Review: On a purely literary level, this is a reasonably well-written book. Clarke has referred to many things in a succinct style that begs for further investigation. If he has done nothing else, he has articulated the nature of the American government in times of crisis. As Clarke points out, Democracies take a long time to decide things, and frequently only a galvanizing event like 9-11 can create an adequate consensus for action. In my opinion, this lack of a disaster-mandate pre-911 explains Clinton's inability to do more against terror and explains why Bush was handed such an overpowering mandate to do something about it, which he also lacked before 9-11. The history (so far) of terror must be understood in contemporary context, and Clarke makes a fine effort at establishing the social and political realities of the events he describes. He also describes important nuances of international relations that affected the decision-making process at the White House. Clarke offers a basic handling of how decisions are made or not made in government. One thing stood out to me personally: Clarke describes Clinton addressing a session of the National Academy of Sciences, which last year published an exhaustively comprehensive guide to countering terrorism. Having been a part of that study and an employee of the NAS, I submit that there cannot be written a less partisan and better-informed analysis and set of recommendations. If you would like to critique Bush's actions in the "war on terror," I suggest you read the NAS study and make your own comparisons to what Bush has actually done or plans to do. Someone in the Bush administration has read it, and I hope they have the President's ear, especially if he is re-elected. He has admitted to not being much of a reader.
Rating:
Summary: Hindsight
Review: Have read parts of this book in the store because I couldn't bring myself shell out money for this trashy tome. Hindsight is 20/20, foresight is blind. I kept wondering if Clarke was doing such a great job for eight years under Clinton why we had any terror left in the world at all. La la land fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Fair and balanced
Review: Having read Clarke's book, I am convinced it is "fair and balanced." The book contains no shocking new facts or revelations. I'm not even sure if there are any significant new details. Just about everything he says has been said before - the difference is it that this time the criticism is coming from some who was in position to know, that it is not antidotal, unnamed source leaks, or speculative connecting of dots. One can argue that people this close to the action should not write this kind of book so soon after resignation, but unlike others (e.g .George Stephanopoulos) Clarke was a bureaucrat, a high ranking civil servant, serving at the pleasure of the President, but he did not owe his job to the President. I confess I never heard of Richard Clarke before last week, and I am taken back by his role during the last 10-15 years. For example he represented the White House on the round Cheney (as Secretary of Defense) made to secure basis in connection with the first Gulf War. He was also the one who chaired (at Condi Rice's request) the immediate response to 9/11 and takes the "credit/blame" for "instructing" Air Force One not to immediately return to Washington but instead to fly to secure military bases. "Out of the loop?" as Cheney claims? Moreover, Clarke is not alone: See Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson, Richard Foester and John DiIulio to name the first dour who come to mind. Even John Lehman, a partisan from way back, began his attack on Clarke during his 9/11 questioning by noting that Lehman had known Clarke for a long time and respected him and his integrity, but "now he had a credibility problem." Who has the credibility problem? Clarke's key criticisms that the Administration misstated the basis for attacking Iraq (its ties to al-Qaeda for example) and that the cost of that unnecessary war has sapped funds and resources needed for the War on Terrorism. These charges have been have been made before (see e.g Paul O'Neill) and, I believe, supported by ample corroborative evidence. Whether that's a basis for concluding that the Bush Administration is, in John Dean's words, "Worse than Watergate," - or a basis for new leadership - are conclusions not facts. Read the book and make up your own mind, but don't rely on White House press briefings or partisan speeches on the floors of Congress What I think is unfair are the personal attacks on Clarke's motives. There is no basis outside White House spin for suggesting that Clarke is wrong on the facts. The White House and its allies have spent all their time attacking Clarke personally, very little time on questioning his conclusions and even less on his facts. The sound bites on TV have highlighted the White House attacks, although the print reports, which contain much more detail, present a more balanced picture. Still, the White House's primary complaint seems to be he was too loyal a staff member while employed and too disloyal after he resigned.
Rating:
Summary: Finally the truth!
Review: Don't listen to the propaganda. Read the book and make up your own mind. You won't be dissapointed and you won't be able to put it down. The truth is a powerful thing.
Rating: 
Summary: PAAAALEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEEEE Lexington KY
Review: Hey hippo I want to qoute one of your last comments I find owe just a little amusing... And I quote "Stop being blinded by the badly written musings of this incompetent 30-year bureaucrat with a severe credibility problem" Now I wanted to highlight a few things you said but I left it as it was. Incompetent THIRTY YEAR bureaucrat. That alone is funny!! INCOMPETENT FOR THIRTY YEARS HE MUST BE A MASTER BY NOW!!!
Gee now who would have more credibility at a company you worked for someone who's been their owe about THIRTY YEARS or someone who kinda snuck in the back door and has been their NOW over THREEyrs. Not to mention what the guy has done LOL I think I will stick with the THIRTY YEAR bureaucrat you can have your 3yr flunky back!!! As Trump would say YOUR FIRED!!!
Rating:
Summary: God Bless America !
Review: News Flash! Richard Clarke can write, and write well! You already know the ending, but... what a page turner !! Richard Clarke has delivered us a first hand account of the battle against terrorism from the best seat in the house - the White House. From the Preface onwards, this book is impossible to put down, and Clarke's articulate and detailed recounting of behind-the-scenes activities is a must-read for any true American. Get the book and hang on for a frenetic roller-coaster of a read. You may love him, you may hate him, but you'll never regret having read him.
| 
