|
richard clarke's against all enemies
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trunks1022 |
| i'm reading the book right now by richard clarke, started it today... just wanted to know if others have read it, thoughts? |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
yep i recently picked up this book and read it and thought it was great.
really opened my eyes to how much the clinton administration actually did to combat terrorism, as well as explaining the progression of al qaeda and dispensing a ton of myths and theories, all from a real insiders perspective. also highlighted the extraordinary amount of beaucracy and inter-agency bickerings that went/go on when they are all meant to be on the same team :F |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| I haven't had time, but would like to read it. Unless someone is willing to copy/paste the book here; I'll wait for it to come out on video. :p |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| hmm sounds interesting :) someone who have read it better put up a summarize of it :D |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
hmm sounds interesting :) someone who have read it better put up a summarize of it :D |
haha i know i know mine was lame but hey i was only halfway through it :P
finished a few moments ago and i will definately be re-reading because there is just a ton of information that i want to reabsorb.
the book will appeal to anti-bush ppls, as well as pro-bush ppls. a warning however, if you are pro-bush, chances are you wont be after reading this. it definately changed my views and misconceptions about how the current bush administration handled before and after sept 11.
anyway here is a proper summary :)
| quote: | | Few political memoirs have made such a dramatic entrance as that by Richard A. Clarke. During the week of the initial publication of Against All Enemies, Clarke was featured on 60 Minutes, testified before the 9/11 commission, and touched off a raging controversy over how the presidential administration handled the threat of terrorism and the post-9/11 geopolitical landscape. Clarke, a veteran Washington insider who had advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, dissects each man's approach to terrorism but levels the harshest criticism at the latter Bush and his advisors who, Clarke asserts, failed to take terrorism and Al-Qaeda seriously. Clarke details how, in light of mounting intelligence of the danger Al-Qaeda presented, his urgent requests to move terrorism up the list of priorities in the early days of the administration were met with apathy and procrastination and how, after the attacks took place, Bush and key figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney turned their attention almost immediately to Iraq, a nation not involved in the attacks. Against All Enemies takes the reader inside the Beltway beginning with the Reagan administration, who failed to retaliate against the 1982 Beirut bombings, fueling the perception around the world that the United States was vulnerable to such attacks. Terrorism becomes a growing but largely ignored threat under the first President Bush, whom Clarke cites for his failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein, thereby necessitating a continued American presence in Saudi Arabia that further inflamed anti-American sentiment. Clinton, according to Clarke, understood the gravity of the situation and became increasingly obsessed with stopping Al-Qaeda. He had developed workable plans but was hamstrung by political infighting and the sex scandal that led to his impeachment. But Bush and his advisers, Clarke says, didn't get it before 9/11 and they didn't get it after, taking a unilateral approach that seemed destined to lead to more attacks on Americans and American interests around the world. Clarke's inside accounts of what happens in the corridors of power are fascinating and the book, written in a compelling, highly readable style, at times almost seems like a fiction thriller. But the threat of terrorism and the consequences of Bush's approach to it feel very sobering and very real. --John Moe |
|
|
|
| Q5echo |
Point of summary taken. It's a partisan summary, but taken.
Now, let's sit tight for the real book, "the 9/11 commission final report." Due in bookstores at the end of July.
The same characters in his book, but chock full of verbatim transcipts of testimony under oath. Much different. Probably not as colorful as Dick's version.
...and don't give me any crap about the summary not being about 9/11 explicitely either. It mentions 9/11 four times, twice in beginning and twice at the end. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| thanks for the summary, i like anti bush books so i will probably try to get it :D :p |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
The same characters in his book, but chock full of verbatim transcipts of testimony under oath. Much different. Probably not as colorful as Dick's version.
|
because the truth ALWAYS comes out under oath! i have no recollection..... :o |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by sifntj0r
because the truth ALWAYS comes out under oath! i have no recollection..... :o |
Well that definitely sums up the Condi Rice testimony at least... :stongue: |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Point of summary taken. It's a partisan summary, but taken.
Now, let's sit tight for the real book, "the 9/11 commission final report." Due in bookstores at the end of July.
|
Wasn't there talk about postponing the final report until after the election? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj_Irish
Wasn't there talk about postponing the final report until after the election? |
The chairman has given a soft date of the end of July to the media pigs. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by sifntj0r
because the truth ALWAYS comes out under oath! i have no recollection..... :o |
The fact that rabble are willing to suck up the psuedo-autobiograghy of failed mans partisan rhetoric, rather than take the commissions conclusions to heart speaks volumes about the rabble's character.
In my opinion of course. |
|
|
|
|
