Clinton administration officials are fighting tooth and nail to fashion history’s view of their handling of the terrorism threat for eight years. But with every Bush success, Clinton’s all-important legacy slips further into ignominy.

Richard Clarke says President Bush should have been able to prevent 9-11; that any answer but Iraq was the “wrong answer” about the 9-11 perpetrators; that Iraq was doing “nothing to threaten us” as we “stepped right into bin Laden’s propaganda” about invading for oil.

Several questions come to mind. If he had magic information about preventing terrorism, why hadn’t he given that information to Clinton? Why did he criticize Clinton when he worked for him, yet now claims that Clinton’s policy was best? Why did he wait until three years after the fact to make these statements? Why does he act as if Iraq was the first target of the war on terror, when Afghanistan and the Taliban took an entire year and are still ongoing? Why does he ignore Iraq’s very clear ties to al Qaeda and terrorism? Why does he not mention Democrats such as Joe Lieberman who side with President Bush about Iraq?

The short answer to all these questions is that it is simply his turn in the lineup of the left to attack George Bush. The long answer is convoluted.

Though Richard Clarke also worked for Reagan and Bush 41, the monumental corruption in the Clinton administration always argues for closer scrutiny of any Clinton holdovers.
Clarke had expected to move up to the top job in counter terrorism, but was demoted by Condoleeza Rice to cybersecurity. There he became the unfamiliar name who always wondered if the latest computer virus was a terrorist attack.

He is tied to John Kerry, through teaching a Harvard course with Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers. He may even be a job applicant in a future Clinton-based Kerry presidency, though Kerry is conveniently on “vacation” now and so cannot be asked.

And he has chosen the favorite liberal path upon leaving government service. He has a book coming out, and this is an election year.

The book in question will be published by Simon and Schuster, has already been puffed by Leslie Stahl on CBS’s 60 Minutes, and is ultimately tied to both groups’ parent company Viacom. Viacom may now have doubts about Leslie’s journalism credentials, since in all the time she devoted to Richard Clarke’s performance, she neglected to ask the Journalism 101 followup question – why if he gave this magic information to Clinton, it was not acted upon. See any old school ties, conflicts of interest, or publishers bereft of ideas to sell yet another liberal book?

Vice President Dick Cheney pointed out today that Clarke’s job in cybersecurity placed him out of the main loop. He would not have known for instance that the Bush administration after only three weeks in office had already begun talking with Pakistan about the Taliban and al Qaeda. This simple fact calls into question the entire house of cards Clarke is trying to build about Bush.

Bill Clinton always seems to find people with the kind of malignant narcissism Richard Clarke exhibits. Joe Wilson and Wesley Clark were similar. Unfortunately, they often have some ties to the Bush administration – making them perfect puppets for Clinton to maneuver. These foils willingly spread the message for Clinton, and expect to share in the spoils. They are always late to realize that the only winner allowed around a Clinton – is a Clinton.

Selling books, landing cushy teaching positions, starting a consulting company – all these opportunities dry up if the Clinton administration doesn’t succeed in propping up their image. The minions attacking George Bush have a vested financial interest in helping Clinton reshape that legacy.

What they’re doing now seems just special steps to protect their cash cow.

Jan Ireland