DATE: 3/23/2004 09:33:00 AM
Clarke Follies - In the midst of the discussion about Richard Clarke, why isn't anyone pointing out the obvious - that Clarke's book is yet another Democrat's answer to President Bush's outreach attempts to Democrats and "new tone" in Washington promise? Clarke would not have had a book to write if the Bush administration had fired the guy on January 21, 2001. Clarke was a powerful guy in the Clinton White House. He was serving as an appointee of President William J. Clinton. In their somewhat admirable but oh-so-misguided attempts to create a "new tone," the Bush administration left in place many Richard Clarkes - embittered ex-Clintonites who were more loyal to the former president than they were to their jobs for the American people.
Clarke may have a point in his book - Bush could have done more to prevent September 11. Unfortunately for Clarke, no one will take that point quite as seriously as he hoped due to his own partisanship. His refusal to acknowledge that the Clinton administration is just as much to blame for what happened in September of 2001 makes him look not only partisan and petty, but also someone who doesn't acknowledge reality when that reality happens to be inconvenient to him or his friends.
Rove should ask himself how many other Clintonites are lurking in the halls of power and consider the benefits versus the liabilities of keeping those people in power. The White House has the right to fire them. Why haven't they taken it?