Reading notes

Larry Johnson, member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former CIA, former State Department Counter Terrorism official, and registered Republican, writes —

Richard Clarke must be wondering if explaining what the United States did not do in the war on terrorism is more dangerous than actually fighting the terrorists. Clarke, the former terrorism czar for both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, is now being vilified by a host of Bush officials, including Dick Cheney and Condeleeza Rice, as a liar.

The attack on Clarke, which consists of leaks, threats and intimidation tactics, has become the genuine hallmark of the Bush presidency. …

This invariable Bush WH response to criticism or questions — a barrage of obstructionism, threats, intimidation, smearing, character assassination — communicates to me more than anything else that its policy, its collective spirit, is now rotten to the core. Whatever it once may have been is gone. No one who habitually responds this way has the Spirit of Life motivating their actions. (I started to postpend that last sentence with In My Opinion, but it’s true by definition.)

On further reflection, I realize I cannot speak for the Spirit of Life, much as I might like to think I can. So I’m striking the assertion above.

Here is the bottom line—Richard Clarke was right, and the Bush administration and the people of the United States would have been better off if his warnings in the early days of 2001 had been heeded. Rather than attack Richard Clarke’s character, Republican operatives should focus their venom on the terrorists who killed Americans in the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. George W. Bush should set the tone and thank his former terrorism chief, apologize for this week’s ugliness, and focus on getting Osama Bin Laden. As one American, I say thank you, Richard Clarke.

Thinking about what-should-be-done leads me to this: As a practical matter, Mr. Bush cannot be an effective president, now or in a second term, because he’s damaged goods. His credibility is damaged goods. His ideology is damaged goods. His theology is damaged goods. And the damage is self-inflicted. Much of the world hates him with a vengeance and will never work with his team, and roughly half the people in the U.S. grimace at his every word. Is this state of affairs even arguable? Can any amount of spin — or even, at this late date, repentance — transcend it? Can anything good emerge from these ashes? I don’t see how. I think that even if I approved of his performance, I’d still have to assess that in terms of potential future efficacy in the world, Mr. Bush can only be at best a lame duck for four more years.

But I can’t for a minute believe that “at best” is the likeliest outcome.