Rating: 
Summary: Only a partial review, but...
Review: I've only had opportunity to read the first 50 pages or so, but Clark has put together one riveting tale on deception and negligence delivered by Dubya and his administration. A must-read for EVERY AMERICAN -- to get an insider's look at how your country's leaders acted before, during, and since 9/11, and realize that we may be in the crosshairs of terrorists' scopes more now than we were two-and-a-half years ago. (...)
Rating: 
Summary: Flawed analysis, lacks certain realities
Review: This books central theme is the 'what really happaned' before, during and just after 9/11. The central claim here is that Mr. Bush misled the nation into invading Iraq and that from the beginning the number one target was Iraq. There are two major flaws with this line of reasoning. First and foremost is the fact that the author was himself in charge of the war on terror. The mistakes attributed to the President are in reality Mr. Clarks mistakes. The fact that America wasn't prepared or that Osama wasn't caught were Mr. Clarks mistakes and this book in many ways is his argument defending himself and passing on blame to the president. The second major flaw here is that this book entirely overlooks the invasion of Afghanistan. In trying to claim that Iraq was superimposed as 'target number one' the book pretends that the invasion of Afghanistan never happened. But the reality is that America struck first at Afghanistan, and when Osama wasn't found America moved onto Iraq, to deal with another unsavory dictator. Mr. Clark had argued for 'containment' of terrorism, a theory that smacks of Kennans approach to Moscow, so the actual victories in Afghanistan where 200s of terrorists were arrested and thousands killed were not the design of Clark. Once again this book proves to be mostly overblown 'insider' comments and much pass the buck. Seth J. Frantzman
Rating: 
Summary: A bit self centered, but riveting nonetheless
Review: The (many) strengths and (very few) weaknesses of Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," are evident from Chapter 1 ("Evacuate the White House"). On the "strength" side, we've got the follwing: gripping; detailed; extremely knowledgeable; fascinating; insightful; and candid. Also on the "strength" side of the equation, we've got a narrator who's obviously very bright, articulate, accomplished, competent, and professional. Reading this book, the thought that kept springing to my mind is, "thank god for Richard Clarke." Or, alternately, "if there was a huge crisis going on and I could only choose one person to be in charge of handling it, I would choose Richard Clarke in a heartbeat." At least, I would choose the Richard Clarke as self-portrayed in this book. And there's the weakness of "Against All Enemies": it's all Clarke, all the time, so you either find him: a) credible and not too self-serving (at least by Washington DC standards); or b) conceited, self-righteous, even insufferable. Personally, I found Clarke to be some of both ("a" and "b"), but overwhelmingly "a." Let's face facts; anyone who writes a memoir is going to try hard to make himself look good, unless h has a really low opinion of himself and a very small ego. Something tells me that Clarke suffers from neither one of these problems! So, what we have here, as the book's title declares, is an account of 9/11 and the years leading up to it from a true insider perspective. But not just any insider; Richard Clarke is probably the foremost expert in the world on the subject he covers. Is Clarke perfect, neutral, unbiased? Nope, he's human, and a very smart/competent/accomplished human to boot. As such, Clarke's got opinions, sometimes contrary to popular belief, sometimes exactly what you'd think. For instance, that the Clinton Administration was actually pretty good when it came to dealing with terror is different than most people probably think. Whatever you believe about this issue, I suggest that you read Clarke's account of events and make up your own mind. On the Bush Administration, Clarke also has very strong opinions -- bound to enrage Bush partisans and thrill Bush opponents. For instance, Clarke all but labels Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as a complete nutcase (and not too bright, either), spouting bizarre and discredited conspiracy theories in which Saddam's behind everything but the common cold (hmmm...come to think of it!). Dick Cheney comes off as simply frightening, in a Doctor Strangelove sort of way. And George W. Bush comes off as someone not quite fully in charge of things, being subtly manipulated by the more intelligent, wily, clever, and powerful men around him. Is this true or false? Accurate reporting or partisan axe-grinding by Clarke? Again, I suggest you read the book and make up your own mind. In the end, though, what's really fascinating about this book is that it gives you a feel for events, a ringside seat at how things get done in the White House during a crisis, and, as importantly, during "business as usual" times too. Whether or not you like Richard Clarke, what he gives us in "Against All Enemies" is a complete, fascinating, gripping, credible account of 9/11, the years leading up to it, and what we should be doing now to fight terror. All in all, this is an important, historic book, if self-centered at times. I strongly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Must read for an educated U.S. populace to save themselves
Review: Mr. Clarke writes, "One shudders to think what additional errors [Bush] will make in the next four years to strengthen . . . al Qaeda . . . ." p. 290. I learned a great deal by reading this book. America is less secure today by invading Iraq -- "an oil-rich Arab country that posed no threat to us . . . [and] deliver[ing] to al Queda the greatest recruitment propaganda imaginable and made it difficult for friendly Islamic governments to be seen working closely with us." p. 264. We've all been hood-winked by the Bush White house - a president I regrettably voted for. We've been diverted from eliminating al Queda by invading Iraq, we've ignored our vulnerabilities to terrorism at home, we should have been dealing with the ideological threat. We've stirred-up a hornet's nest in the Islamic world by stepping on that flimsey step ladder and batting the hell out of a nest of terrorists that did not exist in Iran. We owe a debt of gratitude to Richad Clarke and so many other people like John O'Neill, etc. This is a very engrossing book. Although there are a few writing hick-ups that I blame on poor editing, this is a book that as one reviewer said you should pass on to candidates in you community. I saw a little of the debate for Senator in Georgia and was absolutely mortified at the ignorance of the candidates -- my God, they can barely talk legibly. I'm a native Georgian, and I just wanted to cry while I screamed at the t.v. I turned it off for the sake of my high blood pressure. Asking questions, critically analyzing our politicians' decisionmaking is patriotic - I don't give a damn what Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and especially Ashcroft say. Ashcroft who lost an election to a dead man. John, pursue your songwriting career. At least then we can turn you off man. Nobody who merely carries a bar card ought to be Atty Gen. READ CLARKE'S BOOK for your sake and the sake of our children.
Rating:
Summary: I really wish everyone had read this book before 11/04.
Review: Let me preface this with the information that I am absolutly disgusted with the Bush administration and am appaled at the direction that this country has turned. Let me go a bit further by saying that I am 50 years of age and have voted Republican in every election besides the most recent one and Clinton's second term. I liken myself to an ex-smoker who tends to take a much more vehement stand against smokers than one who has never smoked. I really relate to Mr. Clarke's absolute frustration with the current administration's war on terror. However; this book is truly unbiased. Mr. Clarke simply tells it like it is. How can the most powerful people in the world react to the tragedy of 9/11 by overthrowing the corrupt Iraqi regime? How pathetically stupid have our leaders (and Americans as a whole) become? The actions of the Bush administration defy logic time and again. Reading this book was once a necessity. Now it is still a great read, though a bit long winded. Now it is also too late.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing memoir of a White House bureaucrat
Review: This book caused such a stir in the fall of 2004 that I assumed it must be packed with engaging insights into the war on terror. Instead it seemed to be the daily meetings, musings and conversations of a disaffected Washington bureaucrat. There is very little new you will learn from this book. I actually think the author (or perhaps his editors) primed the book exclusively for release during the 2004 election, and as a result post-election it reads a bit like a deflated balloon.
The last chapter - the one in which he claims he will reveal how the war on terror could be won - was the chapter I had hoped would save the book for me. But instead of providing brilliant insight and direction, the author goes on what seemed to be a very personal tirade against the Bush administration without ever offering any actual advice (oh, watch out for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran). By the end, I could begin to understand why his role within the White House was demoted in 2000.
Perhaps the most revealing comment was his soft assertion that somehow if only he had been invited to brief the cabinet in January instead of August of 2001, 9/11 might somehow had been averted.
Anyway, I recommend you pass on this one. Very, very disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: Where Was Mr. Clarke?
Review: When Bill Clinton chose to make those pin-prick cruise missile strikes on empty terror camps in Afghanistan and on an alledged pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan. And where was Mr. Clarke when Bill Clinton chose to send in B-52s to incinerate 2000 non-terrorist pro-American Serbs instead of sending them (or special forces) off to the mountains of Afghanistan?
Clinton, preoccupied with saving his a** after the impeachment hearings chose to make an Impeachment war over Kosovo, but Richard Clarke (and I don't question his patriotism, or what he did try to do - only where his fingerpointing should have been made) fell into lockstep with Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, and the rest who are much more responsible for ignoring the threat of Al Qaeda than the Bush Administration (remember, Clinton had 8 years to deal with Osama - and Richard Clarke, if anyone should know that well)
Richard Clarke occupied the same Oval Office that Oliver North once worked out of. There the similarity ends. Yes, President Reagan, God Bless Him, should be rightly blamed for not dealing with terrorists after the bombing of the Marine barracks. But he does deserve credit, as does Colonel North, for the bombing of Libya, and the swift retaliation on the hijackers of the "Achille Lauro". North was the architect of the latter action, and what did Richard Clarke do that was comparable.
Mr. Clarke did try time and time again to alert Clinton about Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But Billy was too busy with the bims. He wouldn't even meet with James Woolsey, his CIA director (see Gerald Posner's book), something Mr. Clarke doesn't mention here.
yes, President Bush can be faulted, but he had only eight months to deal with Al Qaeda and was in the process of cobbling together a plan despite the incompetency of the FBI and of Mr. Tenet, the holdover at CIA whom he should have jettisoned right away. Bill Clinton gave us that FBI, Mr. Tenet, and an emasculated Intelligence.
Furthermore, Mr. Clarke can also be faulted for being cocksure of himself. Tommy Franks points that out in his book, and Clarke did some unfortunate self-promotion on 60 Minutes a good two years before 9/11 about how we were unprepared but hey he was doing a wonderful job. I do believe Mr. Clarke meant well, and maybe working with a Colonel North (whom Clarke's friends in the Kerry camp despised) they would have been a team that Osama would have been reckoned with. It was his misfortune to serve the Carterites and Slick.
And he was NO Ollie North who did get things done. If North was still running that office instead of Clarke, we would have been BOMBING TERRORISTS in Afghanistan, not innocent civilians in Belgrade.
Rating:
Summary: This book is a great litmus test. Test your friends with it.
Review: I read this book several months ago and will probably read it again soon. It was very well written and holds your interest quite well, especially if your actually looking for information about what actually went on in Washington over the years regarding terrorism and our actual responses to it.
I picked it up basically because I was getting tired of being fed information via media sources which were obviously basing their reviews upon where they stood politically. In my eyes there just wasn't anyone placed more in the midst of terrorism than Clarke; how could you consider yourself informed about terrorism without reading this book?
I've found that just mentioning to someone that they should read this book is a pretty good test of their being open to actual factual information without regard to politics. I honestly think many Bush supporters consider reading this book a sacrilege; that in itself is a scary thought. I've personally witnessed it first hand with my right leaning friends, though I am avoiding the mention of the word Cultlike.
Rating:
Summary: This book should be in EVERY home!
Review: I've just finished reading Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies and I thought I'd check on some of the reviews here on Amazon. I have to admit that the reviews seemed to be influenced by politics. In other words, if you're a fan of President George W. Bush, then you immediately dismiss Clarke's account of the White House's handling of terror.
But Against All Enemies is too important to dismiss. As a veteran of four presidential administrations, Richard Clarke has been a reliable civil servant to his country. So reliable, in fact, that it was he who was given control of White House security operations during the attacks on 9/11. He had the blessing of National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to take control because he knows his stuff...and because he was the one constantly warning Rice and the administration about the thread al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
In his book, Clarke (apparently a registered Republican) maintains that counter-terrorism was a top priority for President Bill Clinton, especially after the embassy bombings in Africa. This seems to be a point of contention for conservative Clarke detractors, as they can't possibly imagine a world in which a Democratic president might be an effective leader against terror, while the incoming Bush administration basically shrugged off such warnings. Disagree if you will, but the 9/11 Commission made similar assessments.
Politics aside, I was fascinated by the steps that Clarke, and others in President Clinton's administration took in their efforts to keep America safe, including destroying many al Qaeda cells and disrupting terrorist activities, like those planned for the Millennium celebrations.
But Against All Enemies is about more than praise or criticism toward a particular administration. Clarke finally gives me a sense of the Middle East, which has always been a bit of a mystery to me. He goes into some of the history of Afghanistan and Iraq as it pertains to America's involvement over the years, and how the Soviet-Afghan war basically gave birth to the Taliban and bin Laden's al Qaeda organization.
Perhaps most importantly, Clarke doesn't just present problems that exist in our fight against terror, he also provides solutions. While many of these solutions are strategic, he also argues that we can best fight terror by improving the United States' relations with Arab countries. Not only is that relationship strained when we decide to attack and occupy a country unrelated to the 9/11 attacks, it adds fuel to the fire of those who have declared war on us.
Against All Enemies is essential reading and I believe its author is a true patriot. Richard Clarke's only agenda has been to keep America safe, and I believe he did everything in his power to do. Were mistakes made along the way? Sure. And Mr. Clarke is aware that the best way to improve our efforts is to learn from our mistakes. These are valuable lessons to all of us, especially President George W. Bush and his administration. It's a shame they didn't listen to Clarke's warnings. It's a shame they immediately tried to discredit him in response to criticism. But it's a greater shame he is no longer an asset to the White House. I can think of no person I'd rather have fighting for us on our frontlines in the war against terror than Richard Clarke!
Rating:
Summary: Scary!
Review: There is something eerily fitting about submitting a review of "Against All Enemies" on Halloween! This is the most alarming and frightening piece of nonfiction writing this reviewer has ever dealt with. By now, most amazoners won't need the plot retold. In any event, doing so would be too painful. Let us all hope that by the time most amazon friends read this piece, the Presidential election that has so badly divided this country will be settled. The key theme of AAE is that a change of direction is urgently needed in Washington. Let's hold our collective breaths and pray we get one!
|
