Rating: 
Summary: Clarke: "Bush didn't see terrorists threats as urgent."
Review: I found Clarke's book to be powerful and very articulate. His accusations that Bush had information that the terrorists were planning an attack on US soil and Bush did nothing is serious indeed and needs to be addressed.
Rating:
Summary: Focus on substance
Review: On a purely literary level, this is a reasonably well-written book. Clarke has referred to many things in a succinct style that begs for further investigation. If he has done nothing else, he has articulated the nature of the American government in times of crisis. As Clarke points out, Democracies take a long time to decide things, and frequently only a galvanizing event like 9-11 can create an adequate consensus for action. In my opinion, this lack of a disaster-mandate pre-911 explains Clinton's inability to do more against terror and explains why Bush was handed such an overpowering mandate to do something about it, which he also lacked before 9-11. The history (so far) of terror must be understood in contemporary context, and Clarke makes a fine effort at establishing the social and political realities of the events he describes. He also describes important nuances of international relations that affected the decision-making process at the White House. Clarke offers a basic handling of how decisions are made or not made in government. One thing stood out to me personally: Clarke describes Clinton addressing a session of the National Academy of Sciences, which last year published an exhaustively comprehensive guide to countering terrorism. Having been a part of that study and an employee of the NAS, I submit that there cannot be written a less partisan and better-informed analysis and set of recommendations. If you would like to critique Bush's actions in the "war on terror," I suggest you read the NAS study and make your own comparisons to what Bush has actually done or plans to do. Someone in the Bush administration has read it, and I hope they have the President's ear, especially if he is re-elected. He has admitted to not being much of a reader.
Rating: 
Summary: Hindsight
Review: Have read parts of this book in the store because I couldn't bring myself shell out money for this trashy tome. Hindsight is 20/20, foresight is blind. I kept wondering if Clarke was doing such a great job for eight years under Clinton why we had any terror left in the world at all. La la land fiction.
Rating: 
Summary: Fair and balanced
Review: Having read Clarke's book, I am convinced it is "fair and balanced." The book contains no shocking new facts or revelations. I'm not even sure if there are any significant new details. Just about everything he says has been said before - the difference is it that this time the criticism is coming from some who was in position to know, that it is not antidotal, unnamed source leaks, or speculative connecting of dots. One can argue that people this close to the action should not write this kind of book so soon after resignation, but unlike others (e.g .George Stephanopoulos) Clarke was a bureaucrat, a high ranking civil servant, serving at the pleasure of the President, but he did not owe his job to the President.I confess I never heard of Richard Clarke before last week, and I am taken back by his role during the last 10-15 years. For example he represented the White House on the round Cheney (as Secretary of Defense) made to secure basis in connection with the first Gulf War. He was also the one who chaired (at Condi Rice's request) the immediate response to 9/11 and takes the "credit/blame" for "instructing" Air Force One not to immediately return to Washington but instead to fly to secure military bases. "Out of the loop?" as Cheney claims? Moreover, Clarke is not alone: See Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson, Richard Foester and John DiIulio to name the first dour who come to mind. Even John Lehman, a partisan from way back, began his attack on Clarke during his 9/11 questioning by noting that Lehman had known Clarke for a long time and respected him and his integrity, but "now he had a credibility problem." Who has the credibility problem? Clarke's key criticisms that the Administration misstated the basis for attacking Iraq (its ties to al-Qaeda for example) and that the cost of that unnecessary war has sapped funds and resources needed for the War on Terrorism. These charges have been have been made before (see e.g Paul O'Neill) and, I believe, supported by ample corroborative evidence. Whether that's a basis for concluding that the Bush Administration is, in John Dean's words, "Worse than Watergate," - or a basis for new leadership - are conclusions not facts. Read the book and make up your own mind, but don't rely on White House press briefings or partisan speeches on the floors of Congress What I think is unfair are the personal attacks on Clarke's motives. There is no basis outside White House spin for suggesting that Clarke is wrong on the facts. The White House and its allies have spent all their time attacking Clarke personally, very little time on questioning his conclusions and even less on his facts. The sound bites on TV have highlighted the White House attacks, although the print reports, which contain much more detail, present a more balanced picture. Still, the White House's primary complaint seems to be he was too loyal a staff member while employed and too disloyal after he resigned.
Rating:
Summary: Finally the truth!
Review: Don't listen to the propaganda. Read the book and make up your own mind. You won't be dissapointed and you won't be able to put it down. The truth is a powerful thing.
Rating: 
Summary: PAAAALEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEEEE Lexington KY
Review: Hey hippo I want to qoute one of your last comments I find owe just a little amusing... And I quote "Stop being blinded by the badly written musings of this incompetent 30-year bureaucrat with a severe credibility problem" Now I wanted to highlight a few things you said but I left it as it was. Incompetent THIRTY YEAR bureaucrat. That alone is funny!! INCOMPETENT FOR THIRTY YEARS HE MUST BE A MASTER BY NOW!!!
Gee now who would have more credibility at a company you worked for someone who's been their owe about THIRTY YEARS or someone who kinda snuck in the back door and has been their NOW over THREEyrs. Not to mention what the guy has done LOL I think I will stick with the THIRTY YEAR bureaucrat you can have your 3yr flunky back!!! As Trump would say YOUR FIRED!!!
Rating:
Summary: God Bless America !
Review: News Flash! Richard Clarke can write, and write well! You already know the ending, but... what a page turner !! Richard Clarke has delivered us a first hand account of the battle against terrorism from the best seat in the house - the White House. From the Preface onwards, this book is impossible to put down, and Clarke's articulate and detailed recounting of behind-the-scenes activities is a must-read for any true American. Get the book and hang on for a frenetic roller-coaster of a read. You may love him, you may hate him, but you'll never regret having read him.
Rating:
Summary: Modern Day Patriot
Review: In an era of declining morals and lowered expectations, Richard Clarke stands out as a modern example of patriots of days past. I finished his book last night and was taken with the balanced matter-of-fact style with which he paints counter-terrorism efforts from the Reagan adminstration to the present. There's plenty of blame to go around, and even though the current Presidential administration would have the public believe that Clarke is a partisan liar, he is nothing of the sort. Attacking the messenger in this case by the Bush Administration misses Clarke's point, which he so eloquently lays out in the book, the country should be using his book as a lession for the prevention of future 9/11s. I only hope that the Bush Administration is currently concentrating on al Qaeda with the same furvor that they are now using to attack Clarke. Clarke's book will anger those with closed minds and partisan cognitive dissonance, but readers with open minds will see it as a first-person recounting of decades of counter-terrorism failures with the goal of cautioning against future terrorist events. History will shine much greater on Clarke than what the conservative media machine and Freeper zombies posting here would have people believe.
Rating:
Summary: I haven't read the book either
Review: Since reading the book is not a prerequisite to providing a review I thought I would add my the review to those listed above. This is possibly one of the best books I haven't read about the U.S. governments handling of terrorism. There are several other terrorism related books that I haven't read that I presume are very good, but Clarkes' book is definately my favorite.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent! It's about time the truth is told!
Review: I find this book to be so interesting and so truthful. For any of the critics accusing Mr. Clark of telling lies, perhaps all you would need to do to verify the facts in the book would be to spend some time doing a bit of research. The facts are easily proven. I believe that is why certain people may feel threatened by this book. Mr. Clark took the time to write this book, giving the American people and the 911 families the TRUTH. Yes, sometimes the truth isn't always very pleasant to hear, but I admire Mr. Clark for not acting as if he were part of some cult, by refusing and fearing to tell the truth. He shows so much integrity and dignity, something that is surely lacking in our Government today. It is easy to see that Mr. Clark has put a lot on the line because he wrote this book. He must have an incredible love for his Country to put himself on the front lines of the most nasty and vicious kind of attacks. It is very clear and obvious that money or revenge is not the motivation behind writing this book. The fact that Mr. Clark has worked very closely with 3 Republican Presidents and 1 Democratic President for the past several years speaks volumes about his credentials.Thanks Mr. Clark for writing this book! Many of the 911 families are very grateful that you cared more about what the truth is and less about covering it up. Your critics will try desperately to smear your name and every word that you speak. They will point their self righteous, hypocritical fingers at you, accusing you of telling lies, when they themselves are so desperately scurrying around trying to cover up their own lies. There is so much hypocrisy in everything they say and do. Don't allow them to bring you down. You can always hold your head very high by knowing that you were the one that did the right thing.
| 
