What’s going on here? The Bush Administration is treating Richard Clarke the way the Godfather deals with capos who cooperate with the DA, all to persuade us of what? Of a small point, that’s what.
I have read Clarke’s book and it doesn’t tell us much we didn’t already know. Clarke says that when the President and his men took power they had their own agenda and terrorism wasn’t a priority. Earlier, Paul O’Neill said that. Still earlier, George W. Bush said it.
From "Bush at War", by Bob Woodward, page 39:
"He acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. 'There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point, but I knew he was a menace and I knew he was a problem….
"I have no hesitancy about going after him . But I didn’t feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling.'"
So why not admit that?
The answer is obvious. They will then have to admit they came in with disdain for what Clinton had done and not just on terrorism. But, you say, Bush didn't invent that. All new administrations arrogantly sneer at their predecessors. That’s hardly a crime.
Ah, but if the Whiite House admits they were not focused on terrorism and preferred their own agenda to picking up where Clinton left off, what’s next?
Probably a new focus on how Bush reversed Clinton’s approach to Israel and the Palestinians – decided to adopt a hands-off posture - and sent that miserable situation spiraling into more hate and death.
And so on. Eventually, the picture of Bush as a straight-talking patriot, strong on terrorism, competent, will darken and peel and reveal itself to be painted on, a false representation of the man.
This could endanger his re-election. Too risky. Better to destroy Richard Clarke.