Rating: 
Summary: This book is a wake up call for America
Review: Thank goodness this book came out when it did -- and that Senator McCain persisted in getting the 9/11 Commission established -- or the American public might still be slumbering under illusions that the Bush White House is effectively fighting terrorism. This impossible-to-put-down book exposes the troubling truth that was merely hinted at by Paul O'Neill, another Bush appointee who was ultimately dismayed by the stubborn focus on invading Iraq, before and after 9/11. I'm certain most of the Republican machine reviewers posting here haven't read the book. They would be enlighted if they did. So many of the critical reviews here are parroting, word-for-word, the talking points of the White House defenders. These attacks are on Clarke personally, for being disloyal and partisan (although I fail to see how a life-long Republican hawk's criticism could be deemed partisan). Reading the book, however, reveals that Clarke was the ultimate expert on terrorism and that he was not listened to in the Bush White House because he vehemently disagreed that Iraq should be the main thrust of America's anti-terrorism efforts post 9/11. I understand that Against All Enemies was vetted by the White House and CIA for over three months. The Bush Administration had plenty of time to plan their attacks on this book (the parts that weren't removed for National Security reasons) and on Mr. Clarke. One can only imagine what bombshells were contained in the original unexpurgated text of Against All Enemies. Also, it can be argued that the publisher's release date probably had nothing to do with proximity to the 9/11 Commission testimony, since the book was completed and sent to the government for review many months ago. If it had been cleared sooner, perhaps it would have been published sooner. All in all, this is a must-read for every citizen with an open mind who is curious for the truth. Everyone I know is reading this book, including people who rarely read non-fiction. It has to be setting some book-selling records, and this reader is grateful for that.
Rating:
Summary: A history lesson - not just about Bush
Review: A must read. Starting with the Reagan administration, it presents a side of history that most of us dont'know about. Well written, informative and frightening - this is our government.
Rating:
Summary: Bush Push: New Info Revealed Here
Review: When I think of Mr. Clark committee testimony, I'm reminded of something extremely relevant that happened to me when I visited our nation's capital a few years ago. I was on a class field trip, passing by that same committee room, when I noticed three democratic senators (who shall, of course, remain nameless) heading down the hall. It looked very much like all three had soiled toilet paper trailing after them from the leg trouser of their pants. I was totally grossed out.
Rating: 
Summary: Should be called Why I committed Perjury!!!!
Review: Richard Clark was are tzar on terrorism for a number of years, especially during the Clinton Administration when Al Quada rose up to be the strong organization they were on 9-11. Thousands of Americans were killed on Clark's watch and finally the Bush Administration demoted him (after he kept insisting that the biggest threat to the United states of America is cyber terrorism, WHAT????). This book is a preemptive hit on the congressional committee (The 9-11 Commission) who will be interviewing Mr. Clark, about his HUGE failures, while he was tzar. Clark expects you and I to believe that President Bush after 8 months in office is responsible for the terrorism attack upon the United States (I Guess even all the attacks during the Clinton administration). Also Clark reports his subjective opinions as fact, like he says (after 9-11) Ms Rice had a look on her face like she never heard of Al Quiada, this is insane. George Bush mentioned Al Quada in speeches when he was running for the presidency and Rice was his main advisor. And that He, the terror Tzar, and the Clinton administration, are completely innocent. Heck He only had 10 years to get Bin laden (Clinton had 8 years), And Hey so what if the Sudanese Government offered Bin Laden to the Clinton Administration 3 times. Sudan offered to arrest him and hand him right over to us the USA in a neutral country. The BIG question that Clark does not answer in this book is Why He and Clinton did not accept Sudan's offers? Also there were at least 12 occasions (counting those 3) to get Bin Laden during the Clinton Administration. Remember we were lucky the 1993 attack did not take the towers down then, they the terrorists, miscalculated the amount of explosives needed, thankfully. The President at the time, Clinton, only mentioned the attack ONE TIME in his whole presidency (the next Saturday on his radio address). Clinton said Law Enforcement was handling it. Clark and Clinton are going to have to try and answer those questions when they stands under oath in front of the 9-11 commission. Well, Clark does admit the Clinton administration did little to nothing to stop terrorism, but insist it was the right wings fault for investigated Clinton's scandals that ties Clinton up. This book is not worth the waste of trees it took to print it. instead read Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11 by Gerald L. Posner; Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror by Richard Miniter (also read Miniter's interview with Richard Clark in this book, and you can catch him contradicting himself left and right); The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World by Srdja Trifkovic and American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us by Steven Emerson and you will get a balanced view about why the terrorism happened by 4 authors with no ax's to grind. One last thing the Bush Administration has been very careful not to Blame the Clinton administration for not getting Bin Laden, its a shame Clinton and his apologists do not do the same. Four last things, One:if Clark really believed president Bush was endangering Americans, then why did he NOT resign in protest (instead he seek a higher position in the Bush administration) and speak out to the press 3 years ago? two; Why in the world would anyone be thinking of Movies while the World Trade center Burned, is this guy nuts??? Three Why did his background report to the press a year and a half agao conterdict much of what is in his book. And 4: we should all demand the 9-11 commission and the congressional hearing on 9-11 should release all of Clarks testimony to the public so all of you who buy this book (I got a free copy) can see try and figure out when he was lying. The fact is he was either lying to the 9-11 commission when he was on TV or he was lying to them in private sessions. he can't have it both ways.
Rating:
Summary: A mea culpa is in order....................
Review: In January 22, 2001, a few days before the new administration was to take office, Christopher Shay, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security sent a letter to Dr. Condoleeza Rice cautioning her about the "flawed" state of our national counter terrorism effort. He particularly cited Mr. Richard Clarke. Last week, March 24, 2004, he made this information available to the 9/11 Commission along with supporting documentation.
I have yet to see this mentioned in the mainstream media. He conveyed to her the following: Beginning in March of 1999, Mr. Shay's subcommittee began holding hearings on terrorism. During the course of these, of course, he spoke to Mr. Clarke. He tells Ms. Rice: "Mr. Clarke has stated his office lacks resources and has no authority over the 40 federal departments, agencies, and bureaus having a role in the effort to combat terrorism." Mr. Shay further points out that other witnesses in the hearings stated that "analysis of the threat from terrorism lacks coordination. Currently, different agencies assess a myriad of threats making a national threat assessment disjointed." "The hearings also indicated there is no coordinated national strategy....... no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure. Instead, several Presidential directives and a Justice Department five-year law enforcement plan were clumsily lashed together and called a strategy." Mr. Shay cites several reports as well as "experts in the field" which concurred with his Subcommittee's conclusions that our existing counter-terrorism efforts were inadequate. It is clear to all but the very biased, that the years of treating terrorism as primarily "police matters", and responding to acts of terrorism as you would "swat a fly" as President Bush called it, was what lead to the impression that we were weak, and told terrorists they could go unscathed. The chance, the only chance, to know in enough detail the plans for 9/11 was lost when the terrorists who entered the country in 2000 were not placed on the Watch List by the FBI. Had this been done, the right telephones could have tapped, movements tracked, and real insight into the date, time and method of the attack could have been determined and the plans cancelled. Mr. Tenet in his 9/11 testimony spoke of a "wall" between the "criminal" (FBI) side and the intelligence side (CIA)which greatly impacted the effectiveness of all. As Ms. Albright admitted in the 9/11 hearings, it would have been better had they declared war on al Qaeda because then the domestic side (under Janet Reno) would not have taken the lead. Mr. Clarke, I believe, was actually unable to criticize the Clinton Administration to the degree it deserved, because in doing so he would be blaming himself as well. And perhaps, this was too much for his conscience. So he and others have tried to equate the 7-1/2 months of the Bush term with the 8 years of the Clinton administration and pretend there was the same level of malfeasance. It doesn't wash. By writing this book, Mr. Clarke hopes to accomplish much
1) Blame Bush who "demoted" him to a lesser role 2) Distract from his own guilt and that of the Clinton Administration and 3) And, in the process, make money from this book and have his 15 minutes of fame. If anyone owes the 9/11 families an apology, it is he and Bill Clinton.
Rating:
Summary: TO PSYCHO LIBS: THIS IS [NOT CORRECT], A COLLUDING FOR PERSONAL GAIN
Review: WASHINGTON - The White House, intensifying its effort to discredit former national security aide Richard Clarke, took the unusual step Wednesday of revealing he was the anonymous official who had defended President Bush's anti-terrorism strategy in August 2002. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who was Clarke's boss, also accused him of offering differing versions of his role in providing a plan to combat terrorism. "This story has so many twists and turns, he needs to get his story straight." In nationally televised testimony Wednesday, Clarke said the administration scaled back the struggle against al-Qaida after taking office in 2001, making it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" until the Sept. 11 attacks. But in the 2002 discussion with reporters, Clarke outlined a multi-pronged approach for confronting al-Qaida that he said the White House had developed over several months leading up to the attacks. Rice, in a meeting with reporters, released a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail Clarke sent to her that said, "When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and other domestic law enforcement authorities." He attached an earlier memo from before Sept. 11 in which Clarke warned such agencies that "a spectacular al-Qaida terrorist attack was coming in the near future." "Thus, the White House did insure that domestic law enforcement ... knew that (his office) believed that a major al-Qaida attack was coming and it could be in the U.S.," Clarke's e-mail said. She suggested that e-mail was self-serving, and conflicted with other more recent assertions by Clarke in his new book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," and during his testimony Wednesday before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. Earlier, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, referring to Clarke's White House briefing, said that Clarke "in his own words, provides a point-by-point rebuttal of what he now asserts. This shatters the cornerstone of Mr. Clarke's assertions." Asked about his briefing comments, Clarke said he had chosen to "put the best face" on Bush's policies while working for him in 2002. "I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration," Clarke told the commission investigating the terrorist attacks. Just before Clarke began testifying Wednesday afternoon, McClellan read lengthy excerpts of the Aug. 4, 2002, briefing that Clarke gave reporters. McClellan quoted Clarke criticizing the Clinton administration. "There was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," Clarke said. At the time of the original briefing, the White House had insisted that journalists refer to Clarke only as a "senior administration official." But on Wednesday, the administration changed the terms. Fox News asked the White House for permission to reveal Clarke as the source, and the White House agreed, McClellan said. After Fox aired its report, White House officials told other members of the news media they, too, could identify Clarke as the source. Clarke was a top counterterrorism official for both the Clinton and Bush administrations. He said in the 2002 briefing that President Clinton had a strategy for tackling al-Qaida, but that it languished for years because that administration could not resolve several thorny issues. Bush officials reviewed those policies when they came into office, and decided to "increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action fivefold, to go after al-Qaida," Clarke said in 2002. Bush embraced a plan for the "rapid elimination" of al-Qaida, shifting from the Clinton administration's policy of seeking to "roll back" the threat over several years, Clarke said at that earlier briefing.
The decision to reveal Clarke as the source in the August 2002 illustrated the White House's determination to blunt Clarke's attacks on Bush in an election year. "Let's remember why we are having this conversation, because Mr. Clarke made assertions that we have said are flat-out wrong," McClellan said. Moreover, in his book, "Mr. Clarke certainly decided on his own to go ahead and reveal conversations that were considered private previously," the spokesman said. Asked at the commission hearing Wednesday whether he intended to mislead journalists and their readers in 2002, Clarke said no. "When you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice," he said. One "choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did."
Rating:
Summary: Great work of fiction from a 911 profiteer
Review: We have plenty of Mr Clarke's own testimony and interviews that contradict the assertions in this book. Clarke should be ashamed of profiting from 911 and politicizing the commission. It is one of the most selfish acts ever. It also virtually guarantees that no future President will keep NSC employees from other administrations. If you are looking to blame someone for 911, blame Al Qaeda, not Climton (8 years) or Bush (8 months).
Rating:
Summary: Highly Recommended Reading!
Review: So much attention to this book. So many "off-the-mark" assaults on the veracity of the author. Every American should read this book for him or herself and consider the verifiable facts. Example: Were you aware that since Clarke left the job of Terrorist Czar, (early in 2002), four other people have held that position? That's four people in two years! That's a heckuva turnover rate, by anyone's standards. Now, ask yourself, "Does that revolving door to the Terrorist Czar's seat make you feel safer?" Why is everyone quitting that job? I read this book over a period of 24-hours. I am a critical reader. My analysis is that Mr. Clarke is telling the truth as he sees it. There may be other views and additional information, but there are no glaring contradictions or untruths in what he reports. Mr. Clarke is a patriot. IMO, we owe him our gratitude for all of the good work that he has done to keep us safe, and for the very brave thing that he did in writing this book.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting read
Review: I don't think anyone here has had the kind of access to the war on terrorism that Clarke has had. Clarke has worked for Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr (who he also voted for). His experience is unquestioned, and the views presented in this book are very different from those of the supposed "Wartime President." A very interesting read from an author who can hardly be called a partisan attacker - except by those who have something to hide.
Rating:
Summary: insightful and powerful
Review: Richard Clarke's book is insightful and powerful. I found it to be very articulate and revealing about all of the administrations. I find his analysis to be one of expertise and experience. After reading his book, he appears to be very credible and qualified.
| 
