THE RICHARD CLARKE AFFAIR

THE RICHARD CLARKE AFFAIR

By Mumia Abu-Jamal

[Col. Writ. 3/28/04]

There is perhaps one thing more explosive than the damning revelations of former White House counter- terrorism chief, Richard Clarke; and that is the White House's response to him.

With venom barely distinguishable from their attacks launched a year ago against the Saddam Regime, the White House has tried mightily to paint the 30-year government bureaucrat as a knave, a traitor, an incompetent, or a fool.

I may be off the mark, but the last time I saw something faintly similar to this was during the Nixon Regime, when a presidential assistant named John Dean gave up the tapes on his boss.

Is this Watergate?

Hardly. Yet it is a dangerous attack on the inner workings of the White House on an issue that, just weeks ago, seemed like a sure-fire vote-getter for President George W. Bush -- his handling of the so-called 'War on Terrorism.'

If Clarke does anything, he shows that the White House, at the highest levels, was fixated, obsessed even, on the eradication of the Iraqi Regime; an event that Clarke says is bound to make the War harder, in the long run, by playing into the hands of the jihadis (like Al-Qaeda) who have long preached that the Americans would do anything to conquer the oil-rich Arab States, to get their hands on the 'black gold' beneath.

White House attacks on Clarke have come with a vehemence that is breath-taking.

He is derided as a 'partisan' who, they suggest, is a closet supporter of the Democratic presidential challenger, John Kerry.

Or, he wants to get rich with a juicy book deal ....

And, as usual, the media, ever hungry for the latest scandal, is eating it up, lapping it up like a kitten on a saucer of milk.

Lost in the sauce is logic.

If Clarke is anything, he is, and seems to have ever been, a right-wing hawk.

He advocated the bombing of Afghanistani bases -- all of them -- long before 9/11; He advocated the Israeli practice of preemptive killings (they call them assassinations) of suspected jihadis, all over the world.

This guy, at base is a right-wing nationalist, who has advocated actions that several Administrations (including, it seems, the Bush I presidency) have declined to do.

The idea that he is somehow sweet on Kerry seems, on its face, ludicrous.

And book deals are hardly the way to make big bucks; the average royalty covers little more than 10% of the cost, and there's a slump in the industry, largely driven by the larger slump in the nation's economy.

If Richard Clarke did not make, nor invest a decent coin in 30 years of government service, sometimes at very high levels, then it is the government that is to be condemned for not rewarding such lengths of public service, certainly not Mr. Clarke.

What Clarke confirms, however, is condemnation, indeed.

The White House, driven by the demon of ideology, drove the nation to war on a lie.

Is the nation safer? Indeed, is any nation?

The Bush Regime has unleashed something that is remarkably resistant to cluster bombs, and daisy cutters, and even low-grade nukes -- hatred, deep, and bitter, at the nations that have used false pretenses to wage war, and humiliate an Arab state.

Iraq was never the problem; and as its feeble resistance proved, it was never a threat to the U.S.

A year before the war, California's right-wing Democrat, House Member, Tom Lantos, told members of the Israeli Knesset, "We'll be rid of the bastard (referring to Saddam) soon enough. And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you." (G. Simon Harak, "Why Invade Iraq?", *BLUEPRINT For Social Justice (Oct./Nov. '02), p. 9]

You still think this War is in defense of 'democracy?'

Hardly. It never was. It never will be. Armies don't bring democracies; they smother them.