The politics of truth
Shelley Walia

Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror
by Richard A. Clarke. Free Press, London. Pages 305. £ 18.99.

THE cat is out of the bag. US President George W. Bush and his team of conspirators now fear the devastating revelations about their complete failure to heed warnings about the imminent al-Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers. Bush’s election campaign, therefore, stands jeopardised. Recent opinion polls have shown Bush’s popularity suddenly taking a nosedive, especially after the release of Against All Enemies written by his former anti-terrorism chief.

The fallout from Richard Clarke’s claims have been very damaging to the warrior President’s future political career, especially because it has given birth to an unending controversy from which there seems to be no escape. It is a frontal attack on the President’s main electoral agenda of "War on Terrorism," a rude shaking of the Republican platform of national security and a dereliction of duty for neglecting the warnings: "This administration, while it listened to me, either didn’t believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were no urgent problems."

Clarke’s emotional testimony before the National Commission investigating the attacks on September 11, 2001, has been a bombshell. Americans, who had lost their dear ones, now are provoked deeply on hearing the allegations of Clarke that the President and his aides had not done enough to protect America. Richard Clarke has the credentials of putting forward authentic accusations, having been an adviser on terrorism to four Presidents.

The effect of this book and his testimony has been a frantic defence offered by the Republicans with the main thrust being on Clarke’s partisan stance and his desire to multiply the sale of his book, "an appalling act of profiteering," as the Republican Senator Bill Frist put it. It is also being argued that the book is the result of the anger at his career being stalled.

The belligerent nature of such defence is self-damaging, as the Republicans are showing no grace in accepting the truth of the matter. Aggressive attitudes are always damaging in any election campaign.

Bush’s belligerent attitude has earned him millions of enemies around the world. Those who worked for him are itching to come out with their version of the "truth." Clarke’s account has a large perspective, ranging from the world of terrorism in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and the Tokyo underground nerve gas attacks to the two Gulf Wars. He seems to be on the side of Bill Clinton, arguing that he did feel that the priority before the State Department should be to eliminate Osama-bin-Laden and al-Qaeda, but the incoming government ignored this. Strangely, the new President always linked the 9/11 attacks with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke writes that Bush ordered him to "see if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way."

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. But, Mr President, al-Qaeda did this." Bush was adamant not to pay heed and ordered that some small evidence must be found to link Iraq with the terrorist attacks. Thus, Afghanistan and Iraq became a conflation of two separate attacks and the emergence of the notion of the "axis of evil."

Asked by the government commission to explain his venomous attack, Clarke explained: "The reasons I am strident in my criticism of the President of the United States is because by invading Iraq, he has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

The book thus provides some new insights into the fact that the war on Iraq was always on the anvil much before 9/11, and that Washington went all out to ignore any evidence against the existence of weapons of mass destruction or the reality of the terrorist onslaught.

The latest investigations on the flaws in the intelligence reports on the question of WMD along with this scathing attack on Bush by Clarke are well timed for the further boost to the gathering antagonism against America. Undoubtedly, over the years, Clarke became frustrated when the then President Bill Clinton did not take action against the terrorists, though he put it on high priority.

With the coming of Bush, Clarke was somewhat encouraged, thinking that the new administration would go all out to break the spine of al-Qaeda. But here also he did not succeed in moving his new masters towards a serious view of dismantling al-Qaeda. This angered him, and in turn his immediate boss Ms Condoleeza Rice downgraded his formal position in the Security Council. Rice was of the view that this was not a demotion and Clarke responded by never being present at her staff meetings.

What was left in the wake of this powwow were only bruised egos at the cost of the significance of realising the crucial warnings that had begun to filter in much before the attacks in September. Clarke further reveals that Ms Rice indicated amply from her facial expression that she had never heard of al-Qeada when he first mentioned the dangers facing America from this terrorist body. She did not know that Clarke had comprehensive knowledge of what he was informing the administration of.

She was, indeed, messing with the wrong fellow who had nothing before him but the seriousness of the issue. Clarke had worked long hours and that too seriously and with full dedication to his assignment. A CIA colleague is of the view that "he’s very smart, but he breaks a lot of pottery."

HOME