Rating: 
Summary: Shows Bush as a (...)liar
Review: Excellent book. Bush's lying attempt to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein is exposed as the sort (...) ranting we might expect from the scum bag low life war criminal currently in the White House. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice's private links to the Saudi oil money which funded 9/11 could have been better covered.
Rating:
Summary: Who's Got a Credibility Problem?
Review: Most of the reviews I've seen on Amazon, think that, as I do, Against All Enemies, is a great book. The ones that don't say Clarke has a credibility Problem. I say who has a bigger credibility problem Clark or Bush. It wasn't Clark who told us there were WMD in Iraq and underestimated the guerrilla resistance there. Furthermore Clarke's focus was not entirely on Bush. He also had some criticism from the previous three adminitrations, albeit, not as much. I find what Mr Clarke has to say both convincing and compelling. What he says about his former employers apparent ineptitude, though not criminally negligent, makes the Bush team look very bad. In all honesty, it seems to me that Clarke may have had an axe to grind. He was retained by the incoming administration, though his position was downgraded to a staff instead of a Cabinet level position. There also seems to be an underlying acrimony between Dr. Rice (his boss) and himself and finally I believe Clarke was unhappy at not being considered for the new Homeland Security Czar post. All this does not diminish from Clarke's insightful revelations in Against All Enemies, especially when backed up by former Secretary O'Neil and it seems to answer some of the nagging unresolved questions I had about this administration. It is certainly true that there are undeniable synergies between Against All Enemies and The Price of Loyalty. They describe the same bemused, indecisive, out of their league, White House.
Rating: 
Summary: A complete work of fiction
Review: Any factual review of the book versus his testimony (yes, depending on WHICH testimony) does not square. Obviously, he had a bone to pick with the current administration for passing him over for a position he desperately wanted. His next best thing was to trash this administration, even if he had to fabricate most of it. The real standard to look for is his comparison of fighting terrorism by the Clinton administration vs. the current administration. He basically gave a pass to the Clinton administration, which did absolutely nothing except lip service to combat terrorism. For example, each terrorist act committed during the Clinton administration brought out Bill, biting his lip, stating that he wouldn't rest until those responsible were brought to justice. Obviously, he hasn't rested any in 4 years minimum, since he made his appearance, made his statement, and then went back to doing what Bill did best..........posturing. The book Clark wrote took nothing into account except his displeasure of being passed over for a job. Other than that, he has no explanation for the back-stabbing that he is very good at.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent analysis of our failing counterterrorism effort.
Review: This is not a political anti Bush manifesto. It is a well researched historical roadmap of the U.S. failing counterterrorism effort over the past two decades during which the author had a first hand experience as government official. He covers in some depth the administration under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. Each administration had their weaknesses in this respect. But, in most cases their weaknesses were due as much to flaws within our government intelligence agencies than flaws at the top level of the Administration. Clarke describes in detail the flaws and lackluster performance of our intelligence agencies, including the CIA, FBI, and the NSC. Each lack backbone, drive, courage, and focus. As a result they do a piss poor job of preventing terrorism, protecting U.S. civilians and soldiers both domestically and abroad. They also produce flawed, inaccurate, or meaningless intelligence of no help to the executive rank of the Administration. Clarke supports his theories with extensive description and analysis of actual events over the past thirty years. Occasionally, top rank officials compound the mistakes of the intelligence agencies. This is the case for instance with Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, who has been in denial that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were mortal enemies. The reason for Wolfowitz denial is easily explained when we find out that he had been the strongest proponent of ousting Saddam Hussein in order to dismantle Al Quaeda years before the actual invasion of Iraq. This is an excellent well-written book that the current Administration has failed to discredit. It has also a lot of common points with another related excellent book: "Winning Modern Wars" by Wesley Clark. Both authors advance that our government strategy of dealing with terrorism as a fight between States is deeply flawed. Instead, our intelligence agencies should be more proactive and aggressive in cooperating with their counterparts in Europe, Asia, and everywhere where possible to seize and capture terrorists, treat them accordingly once seized, and dismantle the Al Quaeda network piece by piece. Both Clark(es) recommend a war against terrorism that is radically different than the current neoconservatives strategy of taking over the Islamic World state by state. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition
Rating: 
Summary: A Small Part of the Story
Review: Watching interviews with members of the 9-11 comittee on PBS, I was struck by something former Navy Secretary Lehman said- that for some curious reason, the story Clarke told the committee *behind* closed doors was very different from the story in his book, or the story he told in public. Specifically, Clarke was very critical of the Clinton administration in his private testimony, yet he had nothing but praise for the actions of the administration in public, and told a story that portrayed the administration during his tenure of having a very comprehensive anti-terror program which, for some off reason, never involved any actual action against terrorists. The critical reader should keep this in mind in reading Clarke's book. Clarke also tries to convey in this book that the Bush administration could have stopped the 9-11 attack- something that was put into motion laong before, back when Clarke was looking into terrorism for the Clinton administration. For eight years, the Clinton administartion that Clarke praises did nothing to hunt down terrorists. The first WTC attack in 1995 was prosecuted as a criminal act, and the Al-Quesda involvment was ignored. Later that year, 30 Americans were killed by a terrorist bomb in Saudi Arabia, and the fiercely anti-terrorist Clinton/Clarke team did nothing. In 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Al-Queda, and Clinton and Clarke did nothing. On August 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Al-Queda, and Clinton and Clarke did nothing. In October 2000 the USS COle was attacked by an Al-Queda suicide bomb. And they did nothing. The Bush admininstration, following 9-11, attacked Al-Queda at their root and forced them out of their main base of operations.
So why should we believe Clarke now when he tells us what a great job the Clinton administration did in fighting terrorism?
Rating: 
Summary: Mad or Gospel? You be the judge.
Review: Political exposes are typically sensationalized accounts of a former politico's experiences as told to an unwitting biographer. The latest and greatest, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, is much more than just abuzz, it is literally on fire as its release was concurrent (timed or no?) with the 9/11 Commission hearings. And, whether you find Richard Clarke (the former terroism czar under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II...and Reagan) credible or not, many of the revelations from ENEMIES are alarming at best. ENEMIES approaches each President and amplifies the approach to terrorism led by each man but, without any doubt (as is splashed all over the airwaves), Clarke saves his harshest criticism and indictments for Bush II and his advisors. His charge? Failure to take terroism and, in particular, Al-Qaeda seriously. He further charges that Bush II and team were laser focused on Iraq from the outset although certain reports and intelligence indicated otherwise. Although terrorism relative to domestic and foreign/U.S. targets became a growing phenomenon in the Clinton/Bush II times, Clarke details how Bush I ignored the terrorism threat and cites his failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein, thus 'necessitating' Bush II to take up where Bush I failed. According to Clarke, Clinton had the best grasp of the terroism issue and Al-Qaeda's growing presence and control. However, Clinton's plans to address this threat were undermined by the Lewinski sex scandal and subsequent impeachment proceedings. Clarke's rendition is very believable regardless the dubious timing of this book's release. This will be a hotly debated issue for some time to come and, as I write this review, Condi Rice's "sworn" testimony is less than one week away in front of the Commission. While she will no doubt douse some of Clarke's sizzle, ENEMIES is a very readable account of a career man who feels very strongly about the lack of action taken by the last 20+ years of sitting Presidents.
Rating:
Summary: The most important book of the year
Review: Richard Clarke has written a book about terrorism that extends from succinct analysis to thoughtful, reasonable solutions with regard to what has gone wrong since we were attacked on September 11, 2001. His thirty-year career in defense-related topics gives him a gravitas few others can equal and from that vantage point he has told his story. And what a story it is. By this writing, Clarke's "Against All Enemies" has become the book to read. After an initial report on what it was like to be in the White House on 9-11, Clarke begins in earnest to build, brick by brick, how the world situation developed with regard to terrorism, how Al-Qaeda became a force and how the United States responded to it. This is not a book that minces words. Clarke is very direct about whom he thinks did a good job and who didn't. There is very little conjecture on Clarke's part regarding the events that surrounded him. After all, he was there, at the center of the counter-terrorism table. What is coming to light more and more is the belief that the Bush White House had Iraq on its mind when it inherited power in January, 2001. After 9-11, Clarke makes one of his most telling points....that the United States had a window of opportunity after the attack to make the eradication of terrorism its main goal and it chose to invade Iraq, instead. The consequences will be seen in more Osama bin-Ladens created, a more vigorous Al-Qaeda and an enormous cost in lives and finances for the unforeseeable future. For those of us who shook our collective heads in disbelief when President Bush announced that Iraq had become an imminent threat to the United States in the summer of 2002, "Against All Enemies" is sadly refreshing to read. The directness and unity of purpose in attacking Iraq meant that the real threat.. terrorist attacks from Al-Qaeda.. were largely ignored by the new administration. While the American public accused President Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he bombed terrorist camps in Afghanistan during the Monica affair, Clarke points out that the real "wag the dog".. the Iraq distraction.. has happened under Bush. The cost to the United States has been high already and the final price cannot yet be fathomed as there is no end in sight to our Middle East involvement. Paul O'Neill's recent book, "The Price of Loyalty" got us to rub our eyes for the first time about the current administration from an insider's point of view. Richard Clarke's book extends and expands the look into the White House and the reverberations of "Against All Enemies" will be felt as long as the war on terror is waged. It is the most important book of the year.
Rating:
Summary: Bring Em On
Review: For some reason over the years I have never seamed to read the controversial books while they were the hot topic. So it was exciting for me to dig into this one while everyone was talking about it and the author. Not a day has gone by over the past couple of weeks where he has not been in the news. I jumped into the book thinking, based on the public reaction, that it was one comment after another about how Bush 2 stumbled and bumbled his way through the past three years and that we are all lucky we have not had terrorist attacks in the States weekly. What I found with the book was a far more level headed and historical telling of the past 20 years in regard to thee terrorist threats to the US. The author touched on four presidents from Reagan to Bush 2 and I think he was fair to three of them. He had lower level positions with Reagan and Bush 1 plus the environment was different so he did not have much interesting to tell us. He gave both of them negative marks on how they handled terrorism, but to be fair he is a rather stringent reviewer of performance. The real meat of the book is with the Clinton and Bush 2 administrations. Here is where I thought the author might have stumbled a bit. I do not think he was critical enough of Clinton. The author obviously enjoyed working for Clinton and probably felt some loyalty to him, which, in my opinion made him lessen his critical view of his bosses. He did have a rather large bone to pick with the FBI Director, but this is a criticism not only expressed by this author. Given the political climate this book was entering, I would have assumed he would have tried to be a little more hard nosed with Clinton given it would only make the criticism that the book is a partisan hack job a little les believable. As for his treatment of Bush 2, I did not find it over the top. He was more critical of Bush 2 then of the other three Presidents, but given the circumstances, I feel it was warranted. After all, we are in a war on terrorism so we need a leader that is up to the challenge. An average effort as an internal focused President will not be successful. If anything, I felt the author was more critical of the Bush support team. You have probably heard most of the comments by now in media sound bites and to be completely truthful they do make for fun reading. Overall I found the book very interesting and worthwhile. I am not going to give the book the top rating because the author did seam to be slightly inconsistent with his treatment of the Presidents and he filled the end of the book up with some personal political opinions that added no value.
Rating:
Summary: Just Read The Book
Review: I just finished reading this book. All I can say is: wow. I strongly believe every educated and informed American should read this book. Unfortunately, the massively polarized debate currently raging is going to turn some people off. Don't let it. Clearly, today we live in a poisoned political environment. Each side angrily accuses the other of lying and/or being unpatriotic. Practically all our sources of 'information' have been brought into question and politicized. EIB listeners think one way. NPR listeners and PBS viewers lean a different way. Are you for or against 'gay marriage'? Did Bush lie? Is everybody lying? And in response to this 'culture war' many Americans simply seek out news sources that support their pre-conceived notions, and then bask in the 'rightness' of their beliefs. Maybe this has something to do with the failure of our educational system over the last several decades. Look at the other 'reviews' of this book if you don't believe me! So, I ask you to cast aside the usual way that you process information. Don't take Rush Limbaugh's point of view for granted. Don't take mine either. Just read this book. If you disagree or think the whole effort was politically motivated- so be it. Maybe it was. But even if it was, the insider's view of 9/11 and the history of the development of the war against al-Qaeda is compelling no matter what your political stripe. And if Mr. Clark is telling the truth, this terrorism threat isn't 'going away' any time soon and the United States is facing its greatest threat in its history. Surely that's worth reading about.
Rating:
Summary: Against All Enemies
Review: A good overview of the last few years. Helpfull insights. Interesting reading. A wake up to try and work in accord with the rest of the world.
| 
