March 29, 2004

There’s something oddly familiar about Richard Clarke’s situation. He’s a 30-year veteran of the federal government, with a keen interest in national security.  He worked for presidents named Bush and Clinton, and spent considerable time in the White House.

Richard A. Clarke then resigned his position and wrote a book about his experiences in these administrations. 

So did I – and my circumstances mirror Clarke’s in many ways, but with wildly different outcomes.  Despite Clarke’s inconsistencies, he receives remarkable media attention, including extensive television exposure – valuable for book sales.  He even participates as a “key” witness in the 9/11 commission hearings.

While Clarke is treated with great respect, his words are hailed by national leaders as gospel truth, forming the basis for headlines in newspapers across the country.

Yet the man keeps changing his story.  Which one is true?  When does Mr. Clarke tell the truth, and when does he lie?

I resigned from the FBI in 1995, after a five year assignment at the White House.  I wrote no glowing letter of resignation to William Jefferson Clinton, praising him, as Clarke did for George W. Bush.  Instead, I left in disgust and anger, as I had witnessed grave derelictions of duty on the part of our then-commander-in-chief.

I released my book, Unlimited Access—An FBI Agent Inside The Clinton White House, in 1996.  In it, I made two major claims: first, Bill Clinton and his administration had been clueless and reckless with our national security; and second, that this recklessness represented a clear and present danger to our nation’s safety.   

As a matter of fact, I wrote in my book and in subsequent writings how surprised I was that the White House and the nation had not already been attacked by Middle Eastern terrorists.  After 9/11 I spoke out, proclaiming that Bill Clinton was largely responsible because he and his hapless administrators made our nation a “soft target” by their actions and inactions.  I cited examples and even named names.

My story never changed.  I maintained my positions on Bill Clinton and was eventually proven accurate on every count – including another major allegation, that Clinton was a reckless womanizer.

When Unlimited Access came out, few in Washington cared much about national security.  The Soviet Union had collapsed and the Hard-Left enjoyed the false theory that resources and attention to national security and defense could be redirected to more important matters, like gays in the military and national health care.  The National Security Counsel began tracking rain forest depletion and environmental changes, as well as world-wide poverty and food supplies. These were the priorities for Mr. Clarke’s NSC. Moreover, since Clarke worked in the Clinton White House for eight long years, he knew this better than most.

Osama bin Laden attacked us over and over again, yet we sent troops to Kosovo and Haiti – where they remain today.  How these countries had anything to do with national security, few can articulate.  So why could our military travel there, but not to Afghanistan? 

Yet when Mr. Clarke sums up national security performance in his book and in front of the TV cameras, Bill Clinton comes out a star, while George W. Bush is the goat.

Richard A. Clarke will sell a lot of books, and the Democrat base will enjoy a short, sweet moment.  But Clarke will soon learn that the meager royalties from his inaccurate and misleading book about his career in the White House will serve as a poor substitute for the loss of respect from his professional associates.

The Democrats are using Clarke.  My prediction is that Clarke will discover the hard way that after his 15 minutes of infamy – having told three different versions of the “truth” – his final destination will be obscurity and his final reward the shunning of his peers.  A year from now, Clarke won’t be moaning about a president dragging him into a meeting – he’ll instead complain that no significant person in Washington, D.C. will return his phone calls.  Not even his “new friends” in the mainstream media.

Gary Aldrich