Rating: 
Summary: The Truth
Review: Now who are you going to believe? An administration that lied about WMDs in Iraq, or a former official who is admitting finally to the lies and deceptions they all participated in? For once, a book that apologizes to the public for the wrongs they all have done to our nation, soldiers and the foundations of our government.
Rating: 
Summary: Disgruntled employee who formerly CRITICIZED CLINTON
Review: When someone in the FBI wrote an expose on Clinton it was buried by the tv stations and media until the Lewinsky story broke. Somehow this guy was given endless air time even by a station that is also his publisher (talk about a conflict of interest). Does anyone REALLY believe Condi Rice didn't know who Al Qaeda was? Or that this isn't the work of someone who was so passed over and bitter? The U.S. did attack Afghanistan as Clarke recommended but they also saw a bigger picture in Iraq, a country which has used chem weapons, sponsored terror and not abided the ceasefire terms of the first Gulf War(not to mention being a butcher). This guy clarke has contradicted himself (in public statements) which probably won't matter to people who hate Bush and cling to any Bush bashing book or article. Recommended for mindless Bush haters but people who want the truth will ignore this book, read various articles from different sources on Richard Clarke and learn the truth.
Rating:
Summary: Two words...BALD FACED LIES!
Review: I haven't read this book, I don't have 30 yrs. of government "service", and I don't need facts to back up my opinions, but I can tell this Clarke guy's a deceitful snake. I don't need to read a long, trashy book to tell me what my gut, and my ideology already knows! Honestly, if the stock market had this much bull, I'd still have a job. And that's a fact!
Rating:
Summary: UNCLE
Review: AS A FORMER REPUBLICAN, I GIVE UP..I READ AL FRANKEN'S BOOK, THE MICHAEL MOORE BOOKS AND THIS ONE AND NOW REALIZE I WAS ONE OF THOSE STUPID WHITE MEN. THESE BOOKS HAVE A "RING OF TRUTH" TO THEM.
I AM SO ASHAMED TO SEE THAT SO MANY PEOPLE IN HIGH PLACES HAVE TREATED OUR LIVES LIKE SOME KIND OF FOOTBALL GAME. IT'S ALL ABOUT WINNING.
WELL, NO IT'S ABOUT DOING WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY AND OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REST OF THIS WORLD. I AM NOW A CHANGED, AND HAPPY MAN. RICHARD CLARKE HAS SET ME FREE. I WISH YOU ALL WORLD PEACE.
Rating:
Summary: a total waste of money
Review: It never ceases to amaze me how people can be led around like sheep. The first thing Clarke does in his public testimony is to offer an apology to the relatives of those killed in the 9/11 attacks...a classic move to gather sympathy and get the families and the rest of the public on his side. Anyone that challenges his veracity is immediately part of the Republican attack machine. What a total boatload of crap!!! This man can't tell the truth .. or doesn't even know what the truth is. We have a man that did absolutely nothing to counter terrorism for the entire eight years he was part of the Clinton administration and has admitted that there was NO plan for action ever turned over to the incoming Bush administration. Now, he completely re-invents history and proposes that his was the soul voice crying out for urgent action against al Queda. I have a different view of this man. I think we have a desperate, egotistical, arrogant bureaucrat who is trying to rescue his pathetic reputation after years of failed and ineffective policies towards terrorism. I cannot believe why it is so hard for honest seekers of the truth to see through this charlatan.
Rating:
Summary: The author of this book has a credibility problem.
Review: In addition to Richard Clarke's praise of President Bush in Clarke's own resignation letter, the former counterterror czar contradicts himself, while speaking on tape to reporters at a White House briefing in 2002, and actually defends the Bush administration. Here are some Clarke vs Clarke comparisons (book vs briefing): 1. CLARKE'S BOOK: Clarke briefed Bush on Al-Qaida and Bush ignored the threats posed by Al-Qaida.
CLARKE'S BRIEFING: "There was no plan on al Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." 2. CLARKE'S BOOK: Before 9/11 Bush did nothing to fight terrorism, including Al-Qaida.
CLARKE'S BRIEFING: The Bush administration decided to "increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaida.". Once the administration was fully in place, in March or April - because of the election debacle - the new administration "then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaida over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaida."
Clarke says this before 9/11!! 3. CLARKE'S BOOK: The chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction. Clarke writes "UNSCOM and other U.S. government sources had claimed that the Iraqis were working on something at a facility near Shifa. Could Sudan, using bin Laden's money, have hired some Iraqis to make chemical weapons? It seemed chillingly possible." Invoking the 2001 testimony to U.S. interrogators of captured al-Qaida operative Jamal al-Fadl, Clarke says that he "matter-of-factly described his role in traveling to Sudan for his terrorist organization. [Al Fadl] said his assignment was to follow the work al Qaeda had underway in Khartoum to develop chemical weapons."
CLARKE'S TESTIMONY: Now Clarke says the Bush Administration had no reason to go after Saddam Hussein.
(U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 notwithstanding.) Clarke should now be honest enough to acknowledge that his account provides ample justification for Bush's decision to oust the regime that Clarke says teamed up with bin Laden to make WMDs in Sudan. After reading this book, it is evident that Clarke is cashing in on this week's public hearings into America's worst disaster by using the forum to peddle his book.
Clarke's book is so different from the whole thrust of his initial private testimony to the 9/11 Commission in January 2004. And similarly, when you add to it, the inconsistencies between what the book promoters and what Clarke said as late as August 5 2003, Clarke has a real credibility problem.
Rating:
Summary: THE TRUTH HURTS
Review: Clarke's description of the Bush WhiteHouse is right on target. Now we have Clarke, O'Neil, and Bush himself who admit that The President was more concerned about Iraq than terrorism. Clarke is a reputable, non-partisan figure who wants nothing but the truth to come out. The Truth hurts Bush and his administration since everything they've done has been built on lies. Bush should APOLOGIZE to the nation and RESIGN before he gets blown out in November.
Rating:
Summary: Liar is, as liar does
Review: It never ceases to amaze me, this man has flip-flopped more than a trout in a fishing boat. 2 years ago, he gives a briefing to reporters that is in DIRECT contradiction to the claims made in this book. His attacks on the Bush administration are nothing more than sour grapes of a man who didn't, "Have his cake and eat it to." He doesn't get the job he wants, so he writes a hit peice to get back at them. That is all this book is, nothing more. If he knew how bad the terrorists were, why was nothing done on his watch under then President Clinton? There was 8 years to do something, yet nothing was done. And still the liberals fawn all over this guy like he is a rock star. Guess there is no excuse for bad taste.
Rating:
Summary: Panic Attack Mode
Review: Goodness, Clarke's book has certainly energized the "vast right wing conspiracy" into full panic attack mode. Witness the one star reviewers on this site who obviously have not read so much as exerpts of the book, let alone the entire volume. They have likewise forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that Clarke served under Presidents Reagan, and Bush I, as well as Clinton and Bush II. He has testified (under oath) that he would not accept a position in a Kerry administration, and is apparently a republican, having asserted that he voted in the 2000 Virginia republican primary. Does he have a perspective and positions? Obviously, as do we all. It is interesting however that the administration attack dogs and their sniveling pups who write nasty one star reviews on this site have not sucessfully attacked his facts. Failing thus, they have resorted to absurdly comedic, contradictory, and disorganized attacks on his motives, his character, his authority, and his avarice. Sad for us, and especially sad for those who lost loved ones on September 11.
Rating:
Summary: Buy It Anway
Review: I haven't read this book. I have no idea what it says. I don't even care. The sight of all the top administration officials using their privileged media access and memorized scripts to attack the character of a 30 year government veteran that they themselves entrusted with a high level of responsibility is so appalling that I will buy a copy for myself, and several for gifts.
| 
