Richard Clarke is not an evil person. He simply believes his judgments on matters relating to international terrorism are wiser and more important than those of CIA Director, George Tenet and American presidents, including Clinton and George W. Bush.
He reminds one of the six blind men described in the Indian fable, each touching a different part of the elephant and describing its side as Òa wall,Ó its trunk as Òa snake,Ó its tusk as Òa spear,Ó its leg as Òa tree,Ó its ear as a fan,Ó and its tail as Òa rope.Ó Clarke did not have responsibility for U.S. security worldwide Ñ the whole elephant Ñ which presidents have as their first obligation.
Clarke believes that President Bush failed to respond adequately to the terrorist threat in his eight months as president before 9-11. He basically exempts from criticism Clinton, who served for eight years including in 1993 when al Qaeda first bombed the World Trade Center, inflicting six deaths and more than 1,000 injuries.
I believe the blame should fall primarily on the CIA and FBI. However, putting aside all such judgments, there is something wrong with permitting a White House staff member to divulge without a court order conversations he has had with the president so soon after those conversations occurred.
In my view, a presidential advisor should have to wait at least five or ten years after the president leaves office to make public those discussions. At that time, the recording of conversations for historyÕs sake through a kiss and tell book or otherwise would be acceptable.
If the rules of disclosure do not change, presidents will be forced to be artificially guarded in their conversations with their own security staff and to keep diaries of their conversations so that they are not later misrepresented. This cannot be helpful to the countryÕs security.
Clarke would probably not have gotten away with divulging sensitive security matters in England, where there is an Official Secrets Act that subjects violators to severe penalties, including imprisonment.
Congress should examine our disclosure problem.
