Rating: 
Summary: Inept of Mental deficient?
Review: The only failure that allowed the 9/11 attack to happen was a failure of the imagination: no one could have imagined that a human being could be so callous, so devoid of any basic respect for human life, to use airplanes loaded with passengers as weapons to kill many more people. The idea in the abstract was not new; there had been a few 'blockbuster movies', such as the one about the taking of Air force One by a gang of terrorists, where the plan of the terrorists was to crash the hijacked plane on the White House, or some other 'visible' target like that. But no one could ever imagine that there could be people that could actually do it. It was a lack of imagination, very costly and very tragic, but also very human.Mr. Clarke has failed, for the n-th time, to identify the only possible action that could have prevented 9/11: reinforcing of the airlines cockpit doors after instructing the pilots not to open the door even if the terrorists on board threatened the life of the flight attendants. A second possible action that may have limited the extent of the tragedy, would have been to put fighters plane, around all the main cities and airports, on alert and with instruction to blow up any passenger plane that shows sign of been under hijacker's control. All the other possible actions that Mr. Clarke claims could have prevented 9/11 could not have made the slightest difference. The fact that all four teams of hijacker were able to board and take over the planes means that their planning was 100% effective; even for the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, the takeover did work, but fortunately not so the targeting. That enormous success rate indicates in turn that the counterterrorism measures were zero per cent effective. Did Mr. Clarke, as anti-terrorism chief, ever thought about the possibility of and attack like 9/11? The answer is clearly no, for the counter measures would have been quite simple and cost next to nothing. No having though in the least, about the possibility of a 9/11 type of attack, there was nothing, Mr. Clarke or anyone else could do prevent or at least reduce the enormity of the tragedy. Clearly, Mr. Clarke, and no one else, is responsible for the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen. It behooves Mr. Clarke to apologize to the relatives of the dead, and to the survivors, as well as to the rest of the world. On the other hand, Mr. Clarke's failure is completely understandable. Even if he would have thought about the 9/11 scenario, and ordered the countermeasures, it is not altogether certain that the pilots, behind a reinforced cockpit door, would have been able to disobey the hijackers and allow the other members of the crew to be slaughtered one by one at the other side of the door; nor that the fighter pilots, having had the time to scramble and intercept the hijacked planes, would have been able to blow them and their passengers off their path of destruction. Mr. Clarke failure to imagine the 9/11 attack is understandable; his failure to understand what had happened and how it could have been prevented, days after the attack, can only be qualified as ineptitude; his failure to understand the attack even today, after more than 30 months of research and analysis, can only be qualified as a case of mental deficiency.
Rating: 
Summary: SOME PART OF THE TRUTH, IF NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH
Review: This is a quite revealing and damning account of Bush administration incompetence, at least, and very likely something quite worse. On one of the key claims--that right after 9-11 Bush insisted that Iraq and Saddam were the central issues--there is now full corroboratiom from at least two witnesses to the conversation between Bush and Clarke. Both Roger Cressey and Tom Maertans have confirmed Bush's comments. Moreover, Ms. Rice's credibility problems in terms of what she knew and when have become overwhelming at this point. My main issue with this book is that it ignores the long and sordid history of Western interference and manipulation of the Middle East by both British and American governments. National Security Council Memorandum (NSC) 5401 from 1953 makes clear what US policy in the region was and is focused on: "United States policy is to keep the sources of oil in the Middle East in American hands." In light of that and other delcassified documents from the NSC and US State Department, it is not hard to believe that the 9-11 targedy may have been fomented to justify an invasion and occupation of an oil-rich nation. Mr. Clarke has been,up to now,a loyal player for several US administrations; and it is likely that,if he does have a hidden agenda, it is to disable the neo-conservative hold on foreign policy represented by such neo-cons as Paul Wolfowoitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Clarke may be acting with the approval and urging of more moderate imperialists, such as Jmaes Baker III and Brent Scowcroft, whom he actually mentioned in his 9-11 commission testimony. The George Kennan doctrinaires (see PPS 23, dated February 1948)as I call them, want world resource control for the usual economic and strategic reasons. They find the confrontational preventive war strategy of the neo-cons as alarming as the religious right notion of Armageddon. The apparent conflation of those two positions into an integrated Bush regime foreign policy is extremely troublesome for "kinder and gentler" imperial planners. In any event, Clarke has done some good, although the whole truth of 9-11 remains hidden from view. To get a more complete and accurate view of 9-11, I would strongly recommend readers get the two books by Dr. Nafeez Mossedeqh Ahmed, a British scholar of Bangladesh extraction. Both THE WAR ON FREEDOM and BEHIND THE WAR ON TERROR provide fully documented factual analyses of both 9-11 and the so-called "war on terror." Both books are must reads for critical thinkers who want a real, not mythologized, view of American foreign policy.
Rating: 
Summary: AN IMPORTANT BOOK, though not without problems
Review: I am European and see myself as a neutral observer in the present media war between Republicans and Democrats. One of the first observations I made while reading this book beyond the first chapter was that no person commenting on it on TV or radio in the first few days after its publication had actually read more than the first chapter. So everyone was talking about it, but no one had read it. This book can be, in my opinion, divided into three parts: Part one is the first chapter that contains a detailed account of the events on 9/11/01 and immediately thereafter as seen from the perspective of someone working in the White House. It makes some people in the Bush Administration look somewhat bad. Part two, chapters 2-9, is a detailed description of how the United States became the target of terrorists and how (mostly) the Clinton Administration tried to do something about the threat. This part makes the FBI, CIA and US Military leadership look very bad. So bad, that it is actually too scary to be true. Part three, chapters 10 and 11, and the epilogue, are devoted to the Bush Administration pre- and post 9/11, and this part also makes them look very bad. Even if disagreeing with many opinions expressed by the author, one does learn a lot of interesting facts while reading this book. Unfortunately, most of those facts are actually quite scary, such as the realization to what extent Americans working for different government agencies show no ability to work together on the common goal to defeat an enemy. Again, too scary to be true. One also gets the impression that the author really, really dislikes the current Bush Administration. It is impossible to tell if he dislikes them because he thinks they are incompetent, or if he dislikes them and therefore paints a negative picture of them. Since the former option is far scarier, I would prefer that the latter is true. Overall, the only competent and smart guy (other than occasionally Clinton, whom the author seems to admire quite a bit) in all the described events is the author himself. Whether or not this is factual remains to be seen. However, if it is true, he better be put back to work where he left off when Bush came to the White House, since it is men and women like him and those lower-level FBI agents who knew before 9/11 that something is cooking, who will save this nation from further attacks.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing Partisan Hack Job
Review: I did not find this book credible. Clarke had many years to do something about terrorism, and he didn't. Obviously Clinton didn't do much either. The proof is in the pudding. Clarke has damaged the national security here. The book just is not convincing. I think Clarke's just a disgruntled man.
Rating:
Summary: NOTHING BUT LIES !!
Review: The man is a self absorbed Liar.
Rating: 
Summary: Who Let the Dogs Out?
Review: This book is a fascinating look inside the White House. To my mind the most important revelation is that after 911, President Bush suggested that Clarke pin the blame in Iraq. There was definitely an agenda. In a subsequent "60 Minutes" interview a Bush administration official denied the conversation ever took place. "60 Minutes" responded that they had independently double corroborated the story, including one eye witness! The Bush official was taken aback but lamely said that he "stands by his statement". It seems the dogs have been let out to judge by the one-star reviews from people who don't seem to have read the book. But I'm sure they "stand by their statements".
Rating:
Summary: Clarke is Not Credible.
Review: After reading Richard Clarke's work of fiction, I can't decide if he's either an arrogant and angry liar or simply an incompetent paper-pusher who did nothing to stop any major terrorist attack in the 1990's. In fact, Clarke has told so many different stories in the last three years, I wouldn't be surprised if he was charged with perjury for his testimony before the September 11 Commission this week. He is simply not credible and nothing in his confused and contradictory book can possibly add integrity to this man or his groundless charges. Most importantly, Clarke has done significant damage to the relationship between the previously non-partisan National Security Council (NSC) and the Office of the President. No future president, either Republican or Democrat, will want to risk carrying over NSC officials from a previous administration as a result of Clarke's fabrications. The NSC will suffer as a result and so will our security. That is Richard Clarke's shameful legacy. Those with a virulent and unthinking hatred for President Bush, many of whom have written reviews for the book on this site, are rejoicing in Clarke's disingenuous critique of the President and his administration. But the Bush-haters should remember, the unseemly and selfish precedent set by Clarke will affect presidents of both parties as well as the security of all Americans for years to come. Does that make you proud of Richard Clarke? Richard Clarke's book is no "Profile in Courage." Clarke is clearly not a hero. He has rightfully received condemnation and harsh criticism for having written such a baseless diatribe.
Rating:
Summary: A Waste of Money
Review: Unless you are interested in pure unadulterated fiction written by a self-aggrandizing liar, don't waste your money on this book. Mr. Clarke has shown he is incapable of telling the truth and hopes to make a big profit by fabricating stories. The author spent 8 years in the Clinton White House and did nothing and when he didn't get the promotion he knew he deserved, he turns around and attacks the Bush administration that has from day one done more to fight terrorism than Bill Clinton ever did. Despite what his willing accomplices in the press (Viacom, CBS's parent company, profits from this book) are trying to promote, this book isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
Rating:
Summary: This is a good book but I don't understand the reviews
Review: I just finished reading this book and I am shocked by what it says but before I will write about that I will talk about the reviews. How many people that write reviews about this book have read it??? It is not a bullitin board for discussions about what is happening in current events ... reviewers, you should talk about the book and not something else. If I go back to the book now, which is reason for concern. I love to read about current events and this is the best summary I know of everything that has to do with Iraq and the war there. It is only one chapter that talks about the Bush administration, but it is very concise and well explained. It explains why the attacks against Mr. Clarke are against him since it would be very hard to attack the facts he presents. Don't forget he is critical of the actions of Clinton and the other pres. Bush as well. Blame is not so easy to assign.
Rating:
Summary: Explosive memoirs of Richard Clarke is a must read!
Review: One of the most tumultuous weeks in recent Washington history ended yesterday with the same over-arching, monumental question with which it began. Could the Bush administration have prevented the attacks of 11 September 2001? Upon the answer hangs a Presidency.
Before that terrible Tuesday in New York and Washington, Mr Bush had faced the threat of al-Qa'ida for eight months, compared to the six years of the Clinton administration, who first formally acknowledged the existence of the organisation in 1995, and designated Osama bin Laden, as a terrorist financier. This President and his closest advisers are being held to account for their actions between January and September 2001. In the aftermath of the attacks, such questions were first swamped by collective grief, then overshadowed by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now above all because of the explosive memoirs of Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism chief under both Mr Bush and Mr Clinton they are being asked. And the answers provided by the book and the first findings of the federal commission examining the attacks, are anything but flattering so unflattering that the Bush campaign is leaving no stone unturned to discredit Mr Clarke, denouncing his testimony as "lies".
In counter-terrorism, as in everything else, the Bush team came to office determined to be "Anything But Clinton". The charitable explanation for its new approach to al-Qa'ida is that, as the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice insists, the President wanted to stop "swatting flies" and have a new strategy to destroy, not merely contain, the terrorist threat.
That grand plan was finally approved just seven days before 11 September, when it was too late to have made any difference. According to Mr Clarke and others such as the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the real reason was antipathy to Mr Clinton and his works, and a conviction Saddam Hussein and Iraq were at the root of all evil.
Mr Clarke, one of the few holdover officials from the Clinton administration, says he gave Ms Rice a detailed memo on dealing with al-Qa'ida on 25 January, five days after the inauguration. This document built on the briefings given by the CIA and departing Clinton officials to the incoming administration.
But, according to Mr Clarke, he was, in effect, demoted, instructed to report to deputy-level cabinet officials.
That, Mr Clarke charges, delayed action "by months". He adds that during that first briefing on 25 January "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term [al-Qa'ida] before".
Thus the increasingly dark forebodings of the intelligence community failed to resonate. The preliminary report of the commission notes the "tension" felt by John McLaughlin, the deputy director of the CIA, between the understandable wish of a new administration to get its own take on an issue, and the urgency of the situation on the ground. The sudden spike in intercepted "chatter" suggesting one or more impending terrorist strikes went unheeded or was downplayed because of the assumption they would be abroad. In May, according to private testimony from Ms Rice, Mr Bush expressed frustration as George Tenet, the CIA director, warned again of terrorist threats in his daily briefing.
By July, so nervous were intelligence specialists that two unidentified CIA officers dealing with al-Qa'ida contemplated resignation in order to go public with their fears. But, by the end of July, the "chatter" had subsided. Wrongly, Mr Tenet concluded that any attacks had been postponed.
Mr Clarke was so upset his advice was not being followed that he prepared to ask for a new post. In June, a new presidential draft on ambitious covert action against al-Qa'ida was circulating. But nothing happened.
The next, and penultimate, key date is 6 August 2001. That day Mr Bush, on holiday at his Texas ranch, received his top-secret "President's Daily Briefing", or PDB. The document contained the CIA's latest assessment of the terrorist threat, including renewed intelligence that hijacked aircraft might be used in an attack. Calls for its release have been resisted.
On 4 September the day the new blueprint for action against al-Qa'ida was approved Mr Clarke wrote to Ms Rice asking how she would feel if hundreds of Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. A week later, the Eastern seaboard was attacked.
By then, clues of what was about to happen had been gathered. The CIA knew that two al-Qa'ida terrorists, who would take part in the attacks, were in the country. The FBI had discovered strange goings-on at pilot schools, of Middle Eastern men wanting to learn how to fly airliners, but not to land or take off. But the agencies would not share the information. Had he been in possession of them, Mr Clarke said, "I like to think I would have connected the dots". But that probably was wishful thinking as wishful as Mr Bush's belief that Saddam was involved with 11 September. Meanwhile requests for Ms Rice to appear before the federal commission have been turned down.
Hindsight, famously, is perfect. Or as Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's last Secretary of State put it when she testified on Tuesday: "History happens forward, but is written backwards."
| 
