Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror

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!

Rating:
Summary: Is this the best that Bush's critics can do?
Review: Had you ever heard of Richard Clarke before this book was published? Me either. But his book is one of several that are changing my mind about what a terrible job George W. Bush is allegedly doing.

Clarke thinks he knows what the Bush Administration should do to stop terrorism. And he's certainly the man to give such advice: he's a career civil servant who spent _thirty years_ not stopping terrorism. (And then he wasn't picked to be National Security Advisor; Condoleezza Rice got the job instead. The expresssion 'axe to grind' has such a nice metaphorical unity with the expression 'hatchet job', doesn't it?)

According to Clarke, Bill Clinton didn't stop terrorism either, but it's not Clinton's fault. Oh, sure, some CIA guys say Clinton wasn't clear that he actually _wanted_ Osama bin Laden killed, but they must be lying to cover up for their own ineptitude. Heck, after 9/11, Clinton _said_ he'd spent four years trying to take out bin Laden. This explanation will surely have the ring of plausibility to the many millions who regard Clinton as a paragon of clarity and honesty.

Clarke seems to be a little miffed that people didn't listen to him when he warned them about al Qaeda. (This sounds like a bigger deal than it is; even the little thingie on your VCR that blinks midnight is eventually right if you stay up late enough.) But his claims on this point should not be accepted too readily.

He suspects, for example, that Condi Rice had never heard of al Qaeda until he mentioned them to her in early 2001 -- this suspicion being based on her _facial expression_, despite the fact that she had publicly discussed al Qaeda well before that time. It's much more likely that Clarke -- his keen mind honed razor-sharp by three decades of deskwarming -- wrongly thought he was telling people something they didn't already know.

Nevertheless, even assuming _arguendo_ that he was the sole voice crying in the wilderness about the al Qaeda threat (that is, even generously assuming that Richard Clarke was the only person in the entire United States government who knew that al Qaeda was behind a couple of embassy bombings and the attack on the USS _Cole_), I think I can hazard a guess as to why no one listened to him: it's because his advice is colossally boneheaded. Based on his recommendations in the closing chapter of this book, I wouldn't have listened to him either.

For example: he thinks one of the things the Bush Administration _should_ have done is to try to counter 'the ideology of al Qaeda' by 'promot[ing] the real Islam'. Sure. There must be _lots_ of Muslim terrorists who would have taken George W. Bush's word about the True Meaning of Islam over that of their own leaders and laid down their arms if only Bush hadn't squandered his opportunity to enlighten them. Well, maybe it's not too late: we can still deploy Tom Cruise to teach them the Way of the Samurai.

He also picks on John Ashcroft for 'mismanag[ing] the important perceptions component of the war on terrorism' by _coming across_ as someone who was 'attacking rather than protecting our civil liberties'. Yes, you read that correctly. Some people have criticized Ashcroft for supposedly violating civil liberties; Clarke criticizes him for _looking_ like he was when he _wasn't_.

I'd like to know how Ashcroft could have done a better job with the 'perceptions component'. Good heavens, he's the Attorney General, a Bush appointee, a Republican, a Christian, and a Southerner; with that profile, the ACLU's 'perception' would have been that he was attacking civil liberties if he'd wished somebody a nice day. Should he have taken spin lessons from Janet Reno? (Maybe he should have offered to try to get Jose Padilla custody of Elian Gonzalez.)

Clarke has it in for the Bush Administration so badly that he can't even think straight. At one point he notes that Bush said something about the War on Terrorism having begun on 9/11, and thinks this somehow conflicts with Bush's later statement that there was 'no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks'. Where's the contradiction exactly? I can't find a single statement in which Bush has ever claimed that such evidence existed. Whenever Bush says the War on Terrorism started on 9/11, he means the same thing he's always meant: that the 9/11 attack marked a huge change in the U.S.'s antiterrorism policy. Whether you favor invading Iraq or not (I originally didn't), Bush has never claimed the invasion was a direct response to Saddam's possible involvement in 9/11. (And Bush's statement that there was no evidence of direct involvement by Saddam is obviously not, as Clarke's slipshod logic would have it, an 'admi[ssion] . . . that there was no connection'.)

It's tempting to think that Clarke _must_ know this and must therefore be lying. At first that's what I did think. But when I asked myself, 'How could someone who was a civil servant for thirty years be _that_ illogical?' -- I realized at once that the question answered itself.

Basically, what we've got here is a bunch of petulant, incoherent Monday-morning quarterbacking by a guy who's mad about not getting to play -- and still doesn't seem to realize that this sort of nonsense is exactly why he didn't get to play in the first place. I'd have picked Condi over him too.

Read _Reckless Disregard_. Lt. Col. Robert 'Buzz' Patterson has this guy's number.

(And by the way -- ignore the misinformed reviewer who says Clarke voted for Bush. He didn't. He voted for Gore; he said so in a radio interview.)

Rating:
Summary: This man was ignored, by the Bush White House, to our peril
Review: This thoughtful, cogent, analysis of how the United States; culminating in the attacks on 11 September (September 11 or 9/11) 2001 might have been, if not prevented, at least, better handled by the Bush (II) Administration. Although Mr. Clarke cites instances, from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, where ineffective responses to e.g., the Cole, Khobar, and Beruit, led to the emergence of groups, like Al-Qaeda; and the unfortunate incidents which "tied up" the Clinton Administration's efforts to "get Osama/Usama Bin Laden" fell short, he describes how the arrogance and ignorance of this Administration (Bush II) help to prevent the capture and killing of Bin Laden and his deputies (a point that has been consistently, and rightly, made a campaign issue of in 2004, by John Kerry) and although nothing might have been done to completely prevent 9/11, the officials of the incoming administration, e.g., Condoleezza (Condi) Rice, might have helped in approaching the problem to "head off" (as much as possible) the potential for attack. Also, Mr. Clarke's analysis that the idea to invade Iraq (led by Richard B. [Dick] Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and others, became a higher priority than dealing with Osama/Usama Bin Laden [another Kerry point]). It's unfortunate that more people haven't read this book, as well as the 9/11 report, and related books prior to this coming election. If they had, the people who will help reelect (possibly) the same Administration who's action, or inaction, in dealing with Al-Qaeda, and subsequent and mistaken invasion of Iraq, have put this nation on, contrary to Mr. Bush (the younger) and company, a "less safe" world "footing". It is unfortunate they will make the 2nd biggest mistake in recent history (the first being 2000) and it will be unfortunate that this book in hindsight (always 20-20?), like Mr. Clarke, will have gone (largely) ignored, much to the U.S.'s continuing (and then) peril. God Bless [and Help] America.

Rating:
Summary: The Naked President
Review: If you feel safe believing that George Bush is doing a good job against terrorism, you won't if you read this book!
Former Bush White House Terrorism aide Richard (Dick) Clarke's new book Against all Enemies, makes Emperor Bush look like a character in the old fairie tale whose new suit actually leaves him naked.

With the release of this very revealing book, Bush and the White House Staff have been left naked. Clarke has stripped away their cover and exposed them all for us to see. There could be nothing more damning for President Bush than the White House Counter-terrorism co-ordinator, in the aftermath of the most destructive terrorist event in the history of the world, saying in his new book that among other things, Bush and his National Security Advisor did not seem to have a handle on or as least underestimated how dangerous an adversary Al Queda and Bin Laden was and in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Bush and his staff perseverated upon Iraq as co-conspirator, even to the point of trying to get subordinates to find (or invent) evidence of Saddam's complicity. It seems the smarmy Rumsfield was fascinated by the concept of attacking the target rich Iraqis.

Ultimately Bush did the right thing and went to Afghanistan but he obviously never forgot Iraq. Clarke also thinks the invasion of Iraq was a mistake as well, taking valuable resources from Afghanistan, squandering the post 9-11 good will of the world and creating a whole new generation of terrorists by generally enraging most of the Muslims. As Clark puts it, If Osama bin Laden were to have a wish list, this invasion would probably top the list. It has separated us from our allies and world opinion, has given bin Laden an anti America forum and gave him and all terrorists a place to confront the Great Satan head on.

Clarke's focus was not entirely on Bush. He also was not totally happy with the policies or responses to terrorist related events in his previous eight years with the Clinton administration, though just as previous events paled in comparison to the shock of 9-11, the damage to the sitting president is certainly greater, especially in the heat of his re-election campaign. 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 had an axe to grind. He was retained by the incoming administration, though his position was downgraded to staff instead of a Cabinet level position. I may be wrong but 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.

Conclusion

All this does not diminish from Clarke's insightful revelations in Against All Enemies, especially when backed up by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's recent revealing book "The Price of Loyalty" and it seems to answer some of the nagging unresolved questions I had about this administration. It is certainly true that there are enormous synergies between Against All Enemies and The Price of Loyalty. They describe the same bemused, indecisive, out of their league, White House and many of the things that Clarke worried about are clearly comming to pass.