More garbage that subtly steers the reader away from the idea that Washington had "No Idea" about the 911 attacks and that they merely screwed up. This book is for cowards that are afraid to look at the hundreds of glaring pieces of evidence that point to Washington pre-knowledge; actually,I think Mossad did the dirty work. I get sick of reading junk like this that serves to only mellow out and support insecure people that cling to the phoney American Dream while they wave their stupid little flags that are made in Red China. The complicity of the American sheeple is beyond belief! Every body is willing to become a suck up like Stalins Yezhov or Beria believing everything that is said to them, then Bang, right in the head. What will you Sensible, moderate sheeple say when the North American Union 2010 and Shafta steal your job and corporations steal your retirement. Another similiar piece of garbage that advances the "Innocent view of the CIA and Washington" is
E. Howard Hunt's Book "American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA" Completely sanitized of any useful information. If a book has any truth to it, it will be either "Out of Print", Extremely expensive or the Author will have died of lead poisining ( Gary Webb, Gurudas, David Allen)

Richard Clarke's account on how Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. dealt with terrorism. Honest, insightful and non-partisan.

More garbage that subtly steers the reader away from the idea that Washington had "No Idea" about the 911 attacks and that they merely screwed up. This book is for cowards that are afraid to look at the hundreds of glaring pieces of evidence that point to Washington pre-knowledge; actually,I think Mossad did the dirty work. I get sick of reading junk like this that serves to only mellow out and support insecure people that cling to the phoney American Dream while they wave their stupid little flags that are made in Red China. The complicity of the American sheeple is beyond belief! Every body is willing to become a suck up like Stalins Yezhov or Beria believing everything that is said to them, then Bang, right in the head. What will you Sensible, moderate sheeple say when the North American Union 2010 and Shafta steal your job and corporations steal your retirement. Another similiar piece of garbage that advances the "Innocent view of the CIA and Washington" is
E. Howard Hunt's Book "American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA" Completely sanitized of any useful information. If a book has any truth to it, it will be either "Out of Print", Extremely expensive or the Author will have died of lead poisining ( Gary Webb, Gurudas, David Allen)

Richard Clarke's account on how Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. dealt with terrorism. Honest, insightful and non-partisan.

Historical coverage by a man who was there and reported as though he was a reporter. Covers events and decisions from the Reagan era, in the mid-east to the year this book was printed from the view point of a man in the White House familiar with the CIA, NSA the military leaders and their political/military decisions of that era. Hard to put this book down as each page is packed with action! A must read for those tired of current day biased reporting by the media. This "report" seems more "fair and balanced" than the reporting in the news we hear everyday.

Richard Clarke is an unsung hero who tells a riviting story, although in a rather impassionate, matter-of-fact way. However, his style adds greatly to the credibility of his written accounts about how the "powers that be" underestimated Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network prior to 911. He goes on to describe how we have yet to put the appropriate safeguards in place to better protect us from future attacks. With such a huge cast of characters, it was often difficult to remember who is who. But all in all, Against All Enemies is a good read.

Much is now known about the mistakes and deceptions leading up to the Iraq war. This book will likely go down in history and one of the first and most damning exposures.

Richard Clarke was and still is a valuable public servant and his book Against All Enemies is very educational and informative on how the US tried (and often failed) to combat terrorism/al Qaeda; it comes from someone who was actually in The Situation Room during national crises. Wolf Blitzer, eat your heart out.

I enjoyed this book by Richard Clarke. The information provided was good and it helped me see the way our administrations, right or wrong, try to conduct their business to protect America. I was very surprise to realize how POLITICAL TURF BATTLES get in the way and in some cases at the expense of American lives.

"Against All Enemies" has them all. Former NSA security advisor, Richard Clarke, manages to encompass almost every episode of White House security policy since the start of his career of working with our Presidents since 1985. In Chapter One, Clarke opens the book with a firsthand account inside the White House on September 11th. This is the beginning of the Good, the start of the finer part of Clarke's literateness. With detailed accuracy, we assume, he describes the events in the situation room in the White House on as word is just coming in of a terrorist attack. It is a rather dramatic and interesting to see what took place from where the average US citizen wasn't able to witness.

For the next 9 chapters Mr. Clarke writes about his role in the US Government from a first person view, from the beginnings of his career in the Reagan administration to the end in the Bush administration. The first nine provide inside information to the reader about the US's handling of national security. It is also the basis for why a prospectus reader would pick up this book in the first place. The subtitle last time I checked is "Inside America's War on Terror" and not "Inside Clarke's thoughts on why America's executive office is always a failure". Although after reading it, one might believe that was his original title idea. We are fortunate enough that Clarke chose to bestow upon a reader at least two chapters without infecting it with his own blatantly obvious partisan views. Which include Chapter 1; "Evacuate the White House" and Chapter 9; "Millennium Alert". However the rest of the Chapters between one and nine are bearable for the most part compared to the just plain ugly in Chapter Ten and Eleven where the book morphs into "Against All GOP Enemies". Needless to say the theme has been flowing throughout the entire book, but the ugly part of the book (Chapters 10-11), it is just blatant and glaring to everyone. When you near Chapter Ten, so begins the politicizing of the 9/11 terror attacks.

The first nine chapters are somewhat captivating and entertaining but the last couple are an echo of just about every other anti-Iraq book out there. If that is what your looking for, just search "Iraq War" in Amazon and you may be blessed with finding a whole book based on the "President Bush`s `failure` in Iraq" endlessly caroled to the point of bloodshot eyes.
Richard Clarke isn't Frank Rich (fortunately) so we hope we might be felicitous enough to read something that might contain a bit of originality, which is scarce in the end parts.

He tries to portray himself as a modern day Paul Revere in the war on terrorism. He coincidently had all of the knowledge about Al Qaeda before 9/11 and makes it seem as if the Government saw him as just another "boy crying wolf" Who knows for sure? This is his account and we can take everything as hard-line fact without seeing some exaggerates, discredits, even defamation in between, as written by the hand of God. Wouldn't there be something Bush did correct during his four years of office? His good friend Clinton had a whole 8 blithesome years to work with his angelic NSA advisor, might be find any credit to a president other than Clinton anywhere in the pages? Giving credit to Bush for anything ends at the extent of "Bush isn't as dumb as everyone says he is, although he doesn't read many books unlike our immaculate Clinton".

This is not an anti-Iraq book in it's entirety. Perhaps Amazon wishes to sell us that in hopes of the ever so rising polls in disfavor of the war would turn out the "truth-searching" pacifists book buyers. Mr. Clarke does a good job of stuffing every ounce of opposition over every Republican president's foreign policy he has worked with into only Twelve Chapters. Maybe if the 04' elections were so close to the book's release date, we could of expected a lengthier book. He even managed to stitch a small bit of his dissatisfaction over the 2000 election . Page 244 reads: "What if it (9/11) had happened with Clinton still in office or what if the Fl voting procedure had been otherwise?". A classic Democrat alibi about losing the 2000 election.

An overtone lays within almost all the pages of Clinton= flawless and Bush= evil/oil hungry, stupid, and inept which is murmured to the end. He also makes sure he includes to a reader (potential voter) about Bush's reading habits while in office. It is clear to a reader of any political persuasion that he has clear personal vendettas against many of his former colleagues, including Paul Wolfowitz, late former President Reagan, Steve Hadley, and John Ashcroft. As well as Donald Rumsfeld, but then again who doesn't against him nowadays?
A reader will be bombarded with quotes of Clinton's critics of his attacks on mud huts with a "Wag the Dog" theory to divert attention away from his Lewinsky scandal, a textbook defense of Clinton's foreign policy. Defending bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, makes no mention of what else trigger-happy Bill bombed either or even pizza parities with interns. Clarke entering the business of political criticism isn't afraid of applying double standards in his writing.

He also splendiferously exemplifies playing Monday morning Quarterback with his "thoughts" about the US-led invasion of Afghanistan with a laundry list of "what we could of done better"s. Is there anything the White House could of done to please him? Excluding Clinton, of course. He is critical of every US retaliation (or lack therefore of) to every terrorist attack on Americans since 85'. Mentioning the attack on Marine barracks in Beirut under Reagan, Pan Am Flight 103 during Bush Sr., and September 11th during W. Bush. Are we missing something here? Oh yeah! How about that "small" US warship that was bombed by Al Qaeda that killed 17 sailors and injured 39 almost sinking the boat? Clarke seems rather silent on this attack surprisingly. Dismissing Clinton's failure to retaliate with, it would of disrupted the Arab/Israeli peace talks (Pg.224). Doesn't that tidbit of information merit a bit more than a mere paragraph of mentioning? He was quick to scorn past presidents of failing to retaliate against other attacks, why so taciturn this time? Clarke begins to take note of the attack on Page 227 when discussing Bush beginning to take office in January of 01'. Three months after the tragic attack he says "we could begin to go on the offensive". Thanks Richard, it's about time.
He also calls the American traitor John Walker Lindh "misguided". I would say someone who murders two Americans fighting for their country is more than misguided. A turncoat to start.

He also lacks sources of information. If your going to quote certainties such as "Polls showed 70% of people believe in an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection", some sources would be nice.
Critical of the US patriot act, which is surprising for someone who spends his career warning officials about terrorism and security threats. As well as becoming a critic of US relations with the Muslim world. However if you seek any mentioning of the numerous states that are allies in the war on terror (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) you probably won't find any listed.

To sum the book up, is to simply say "Against All Enemies" is a memoir of an NSC official unfortunately bitten by the partisan bug but not without some worthy sections to read.
The final Chapter is nothing new to readers in 2006. You forget your reading an NSC official's memoir and begin thinking it might be Bob Woodward's book or someone alike. He states the expected; "we did in fact lash out in a largely unilateral and entirely irrelevant military adventure against a Muslim nation (pg. 286)" but he believed Saddam had WMDs before America started out on it's "irrelevant military adventure". Perhaps these mantras constantly chanted today were somewhat new when the book came out in 04'.

If you chose to read "Against All Enemies", Clarke manages to keep a reader's attention with few boring or dull parts. It is an invigorating and insightful account of an NSC official. But if you're an independent seeking the truth, you might want to read an "independent" book, assuming there is such a thing.

This book is probably the most enlightening book that I have encountered with regards to 9/11. He gives the events of what happened that day in the White House and what he did during that time. It was amazing to see that Presidents have their own agenda and in some cases, like this one, it really doesn't matter what others have to say. (Of course, most people realize that already.) He also gives information regarding what the U.S. did do as well as what they should have done to possibly prevent the events of 9/11 from ever happening. I believe that every American must read this book, whether you are republican, democrat or independent or just don't care about politics. This book puts things in a perspective that many Americans don't think of!

Dick Clarke has served four Presidents - both Republican and Democrat. His frustration with the Bush administration and its War on Terror is palpable in all of his writings and pronouncements - both public and private. In order to state his case and share his personal views of the failures of many of the policies leading up to and subsequent to the events of September 11, 2001, Clarke has opted to deliver an interesting one-two punch combination - a non-fiction account of his life inside the National Security teams of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations, and then a novel that projects the potential fallout from the policies currently in place. In this present posting, I will address his best seller, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror." In a follow-on posting I will talk about the novel, "The Scorpion's Gate."

In the Preface to "Against All Enemies," Clarke does a clear and cogent job of delineating his premise, the parameters of his argument and the limitations of his subjective point of view:

"As the events of 2003 unfolded, I began to feel an obligation to write what I knew for my fellow citizens and for those who may want to examine this period in the future. This book is the fulfillment of that obligation. It is, however, flawed. It is a first-person account, not an academic history. The book, therefore, tells what one participant saw, thought, and believed from one perspective. Others who were involved in some of these events will, no doubt, recall them differently." (Page xxv)

"All [American leaders] have sworn to protect that very Constitution `against all enemies.' In this era of threat and change, we must all renew our pledge to protect that Constitution against all foreign enemies that would inflict terrorism against our nation and its people. . . . We must also defend the Constitution against those who would use the terrorist threat to assault the liberties the Constitution enshrines. Those liberties are under assault and, if there is another major, successful terrorist attack in this country there will be further assaults on our rights and civil liberties. Thus, is it essential that we prevent further attacks and that we protect the Constitution. . against all enemies." (Page xxvii)

Fair enough. Clarke has given us an appropriate "let the reader beware" warning that he is sharing personal recollections and is not a historian. With that caveat firmly in mind, I found myself sharing Clarke's frustrations as he recounted what went on behind the scenes in the White House as the Bush administration settled into its responsibilities to lead the nation. Despite the best efforts of Clarke and his team to convey the urgent nature of a potential terrorist threat, it took months for Clarke and his cohorts to succeed in scheduling a meeting with Condi Rice for a thorough briefing on the threat. That first meeting occurred on September 4, 2001 - 8 months into the Bush administration, and one week before the Al Qaeda attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

Clarke paints a picture of decisions being made based on pure ideological bases, rather than on the basis of analysis of facts and credible intelligence findings. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, emerge as the chief ideologues in Clarke's account.

"On the morning of the 12th, DOD's focus was already beginning to shift from al Qaeda. CIA was explicit now that al Qaeda was guilty of the attacks, but Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy, was not persuaded. It was too sophisticated and complicated an operation, he said, for a terrorist group to have pulled off by itself, without a state sponsor - Iraq must have been helping them.

I had a flashback to Wolfowitz saying the very same thing in April when the administration had finally held its first deputy secretary-level meeting on terrorism. When I had urged action on al Qaeda then, Wolfowitz had harked back to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, saying al Qaeda could not have done that alone and must have had help from Iraq. The focus on al Qaeda was wrong, he said in April, we must go after Iraqi-sponsored terrorism. He had rejected my assertion and CIA's that there had been no Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States since 1993. Now this line of thinking was coming back.

By the afternoon on Wednesday, Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and `getting Iraq.' Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al Qaeda. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Colin Powell and his deputy, Rich Armitage. `I thought I was missing something here,' I vented. `Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.'

Powell shook his head. `It's not over yet.'

Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secretary Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq." (Pages 30-31)

Clarke describes several similar scenarios in which those who were responsible for analysis and intelligence reported to Bush and Rumsfeld that there was no credible evidence to tie Iraq to any recent terrorist activity against the U.S. In each case they were told, in essence, "Go back and look again, there must be something there."

The mindset of the ideologues in the administration, as described in Clarke's account, reminds me very much of theologians who are guilty of looking for verses in the Bible to buttress positions they have already arrived at, rather than letting the text help them to inform their positions. In technical terms, it is the difference between "exegesis" and "eisegesis." Let me take a moment to explain. "Exegesis" - "reading out" - is the discipline and art of delving into a text and reading out of the text the substance and intent of the message as it was framed by the original author. "Eisegesis" is "reading into" the text our ideas and prejudices to look for ways to support those pre-formed ideas.

For example, in reading the verse: "I will make you fishers of men," good exegesis would involve learning how Jesus' original audience of fishermen, tax collectors and Galilean zealots might have understood his message and applied it to their lives in 1st Century Palestine. Inappropriate eisegesis of the same text would be to use the verse as an advertising slogan to convince 21st Century Americans to buy a new composite fishing rod, or to use it to claim that Jesus must have been opposed to eating red meat!

So, instead of "exegeting" the intelligence findings and analysis of the experts to deduce that al Qaeda - and not Iraq - was culpable for the 9/11 attacks - Rumsfeld and his team seem to have been guilty of "eisegesis" in grasping at straws and looking to pin the blame on Iraq. Such an approach is not only intellectually dishonest, it borders on demagoguery.

Clarke makes a strong case that in going after Iraq instead of concentrating on al Qaeda in our "War on Terror," we have not only missed the prime target, but have also succeeded in further alienating the rest of the Muslim world - thereby spawning a whole new generation of radicalized terrorists and enemies. He also argues that we have pinned our allies in the Arab world into a tight corner that makes it difficult for them to openly support the United States.

"The new leader of Central Command understands. General John Abizaid told the New York Times that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are `involved in a fight against extremists that is crucial to their ability to maintain control. . . It's a battle of ideas as much as it is a military battle . . . not the type of fight that you're going to send the 82nd Airborne' in to handle. Yet Abizaid's bosses in the Pentagon and the White House do not seem to understand how to fight the battle of ideas or the limits on the ability of our shooters to defeat the al Qaeda ideology." (Page 263)

As the new Congress - both houses of which will now be controlled by the Democrats - prepares to debate where we go from here with regard to Iraq, these will be crucial deliberations. Let's hope that political ideology - from either side of the aisle - does not trump reasoned discourse and analysis of what will best serve the long-term interests of our nation and of the world in which we have the burden of remaining standing as the last Super Power.

In this book, Clarke has pulled back the curtain on earlier processes and decisions that were flawed and were driven by personal vendettas and agendas. If his revelations hold to a higher standard those who will be debating our future in Iraq, then he has done our nation a service in the telling of the story from his vantage point, and he will have contributed to forestalling assaults against our way of life . . . "against all enemies."

Al

Brilliant book. Must read for any human being in America. It's amazing how ignorant most people are of basic facts about history only 25 years ago...

After hearing Bill Clinton's superb retort against Fox's hatchet man and kept hearing him tell the dude to read Clarke's book I said to myself, why not read it and see what he's talking about. Wow...it's an incredible insider's look at the fight against terrorism past and almost to the present. The conservative sound machine can try and spin Clarke's words however they want, but the man served 4 administrations while trying to secure our country so he's not a partisan clown. Basic upshot, Clinton tried tons of things to stop terrorism and it was a top priority in his administration, and when the chimp in chief got in to office, he was more concerned about a failed anti-missile program than terrorism and down-graded terrorism priorities; failed to properly respond to the attack by al-Quaeda by not doing enough in Afghanistan, and then started this war in Iraq that was basically a recruiting poster to even moderate islamic people to take up arms against an invading nation. I don't recommend many books, but this was a real eye-opener by a man who seriously knows his stuff, and who sinecerly cared about the security of his nation. His conclusion, be afraid people because we don't have the terrorists on the ropes and many things needed to be done to secure our nation haven't been done, and there doesn't seem to be any plans.

Either fight or scuttle.
It is not (and should not be) `Business as usual' anymore.

Those who advocate resignation in the face of the different facets of ` international threats - disguised as promotion of science and technology' tend to exaggerate.
If you give up as The World Power (bound to play an important role) you will, in that case, be abdicating your responsibilities.
Then you will lack a sense of measure and will lose to some demented and screaming `gangsters' labelling themselves as `leaders'.
Panic can give way to submissive fatalism as happened to you in many countries in the Middle East and even in Somalia and Kenya wherefrom unfortunate events sounded like a work of fiction but indeed they led to real-life drama in which there were `many heroes'.
It was your fault to let the gathering clouds coming from small countries to herald worldwide storms that overtook (because they misinterpreted) your delay in taking immediate action.
Now you are acting differently.
But, would countries in Asia learn the lesson and take heed that America is now more serious than before; at least you've wiped-out the sense of defeatism.

Perhaps the scenario of deliberations between your two main `rival' parties should be tightly knit to become acceptable to the world ears so that future course of action can `pass' without qualms.

Continuity is Key....

Clarke's first-hand account of the circumstances leading to his exclusion from the discussions of the counterterrorism "experts"--Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney--followed by this terrible triumvirate's acting on the foregone conclusion that nothing but an invasion of Iraq would slake America's thirst for revenge and restore America's pride and power is, if not the only book you need to read about the post 9/11 fiasco, certainly among the more lucid, level-headed, and edifying accounts about the arrogantly myopic thinking that got us into Iraq.

The two-fold shame is, first, Clarke's dismissal from his advisory post when we needed his objective, analytic mind most and, second, the comparatively little attention that this book received upon its publication over two years ago. Bush's approval ratings continued to remain high and the majority of Americans (including, unfortunately, George W. Bush), continued to regard the wisdom of the aforementioned trio as unassailable. After reading Clarke's account, I can only be further mystified that obvious, reductive, recycled books criticizing the war (e.g. Frank Rich's recent contribution) continue to be published. Indeed, we are a nation of slow learners, perhaps like Shakespeare's Hamlet paralyzed by too much "intelligence" and clearly afraid to act. Clarke's sober, illuminating, reasoned account is the antidote to the constant message of fear (an insidious malingering terrorism of its own) that has become the current administration's last-ditch (often disappointingly effective) defense.

It's time for politicians to bring back FDR's warnings about buckling to "fear" itself and for educators to counter some of the right-wingers' favorite religious and idealogical texts with post-colonial literary ones, like Joseph Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness" and the same author's dismantling of the terrorist mentality in "The Secret Agent."

Clarke's first-hand account of the circumstances leading to his exclusion from the discussions of the counterterrorism "experts"--Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney--followed by this terrible triumvirate's acting on the foregone conclusion that nothing but an invasion of Iraq would slake America's thirst for revenge and restore America's pride and power is, if not the only book you need to read about the post 9/11 fiasco, certainly among the more lucid, level-headed, and edifying accounts about the arrogantly myopic thinking that got us into Iraq.

The two-fold shame is, first, Clarke's dismissal from his advisory post when we needed his objective, analytic mind most and, second, the comparatively little attention that this book received upon its publication over two years ago. Bush's approval ratings continued to remain high and the majority of Americans (including, unfortunately, George W. Bush), continued to regard the wisdom of the aforementioned trio as unassailable. After reading Clarke's account, I can only be further mystified that obvious, reductive, recycled books criticizing the war (e.g. Frank Rich's recent contribution) continue to be published. Indeed, we are a nation of slow learners, perhaps paralyzed by too much "intelligence" and clearly afraid to act. Clarke's sober, illuminating, reasoned account is the antidote to the constant message of fear (an insidious malingering terrorism of its own) that has become the current administration's last-ditch (often disappointingly effective) defense.

It's time for politicians to bring back FDR's warnings about buckling to "fear" itself and for educators to counter some of the right-wingers' favorite religious and idealogical texts with post-colonial literary ones, like Joseph Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness" and the same author's dismantling of the terrorist mentality in "The Secret Agent."

Richard Clarke's book, Against all Enemies, is, in the words of the author "flawed." It is a first person narrative about Clarke's service regarding America's counter-terrorism policies and tactics during the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations.

Because it is a personal account of events, there is naturally some bias on the part of the author most obviously seen in his overall approval of the Clinton administration and disapproval of the other three. However, if potential readers (regardless of political orientation) look past this, they will find a fascinating account of American clandestine foriegn policy regarding terrorism.

Clarke provides a fast paced, interesting summary of the causes and effects of critical events and foriegn policy decisions beginning, briefly, with the 9/11 attacks before moving on to an analysis of the Reagan administration and its involvement with Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, continuing through the Bush Sr. and Clinton presidencies and ending with the current Bush administration and it's march to war with Iraq in 2003.

Overall, Against all Enemies is an excellent book and highly recomended for anyone seeking to learn more about America's counter-terrorism efforts of the past three decades.

How relevant you may ask? I got to page 93 of the hardcover edition today while commuting home and read the following passage:

"They found Ramzi Yousef."
"That's great news," Lake replied.
"No it's not. He got away," I exhaled. "And he was planning to blow up U.S. airliners in the Pacific with bombs smuggled on board, bombs we won't notice, using liquid explosives. They're assembled on board in the bathroom and then left there. The terrorist then gets off at the first stop and the plane continues on and blows up. The Filipinos found some of the bombs, but not all. He had the flights all picked out, United, Northwest...eleven of them, 747s."
...
U.S.-owned airlines originating flights in the Pacific were told to ground them. Flights in the air were turned around. Cabin crews were instructed to search above the ceiling tiles in the bathrooms, and anywhere else a bomb made of batteries, a watch, and a contact lens cleaning fluid bottle could be hidden. Nothing was found. Beginning the next day, when flights ressumed, no passenger could carry any liquid on board. Hand searches disposed of perfumes and colognes.

'Nuff said.

There were many harsh accusations of neglegance and borderline conpiratorial activities by the president and his staff.

Many of the accusations that Clark had were surprising and scary.

Clark should have pushed harder, and should have come out in the summer of 2001 and shared his inside info with America.

Read to understand what is happening. Well written and direct. All administrations bear some blame. Clinton less than you think. If some of the Al Gore stories were publicized during the election, he could have won. The next election can't happen soon enough. GWB needs to go.

From the beginning it is obvious that Clarke writes from his soul, that he was a dedicated, patriotic man who lived and breathed his job. Yet, he was frustrated at every turn in his attempts to warn the country and the Bush administration that an attack was imminent. In particular, chapters 10 and 11 go into the details of 9/11. As you turn each page you are kind of hoping that what already happened didn't.

Clarke makes it clear who he blames for this catastrophic tragedy. He blames George W. Bush. For those who admire the president, this may be too much to bear. The critics have already described the author as self-serving, never at fault, disingenuous, and egotistical. Reading his words, I got the opposite impression. This man was dedicated and frustrated with nothing to hide. Unfortunately for some, any criticism of the president will qualify as bias--even if it's true.

Here are facts that Clarke states, and are undisputed so far:

President Clinton had already stated publicly in 1998 or 9 that al-Quaeda was the biggest threat to US security. He was accused of attempting to divert attention from his indiscretion with Monica Lewinsky.

President Clinton met with the incoming Bush administration and stressed the urgency of the al-Qaeda threat.

Condoleeza Rice downgraded Clarke's office and job. He no longer had access to the highest level of the administration. (Some say, this book is Clarke getting even for this downgrade. Clarke, by his own writing, gives every indication of being above such behavior.) This Blocked pat of communication left Clarke frustrated that his warnings were not being heard or heeded.

It was President Clinton who was chastised for making a missile attack into Afghanistan rather than having sent in commando units. First of all, Clarke contends that the missile attack was on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Second, nobody knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was. They didn't have permission to fly over Pakistan. They didn't have the range to get men in and then fly back out. There was also the possibility that, without support, they could have been engaged and killed.

Threats of attack from aircraft had appeared before the G8 Summit in Italy. The Italians deployed anti-aircraft batteries around the meeting, and Nato jets flew overhead. This was February 2001. No one ever picked up on the security?

The British Secret Service sent their own warning to the US about a possible attack by aircraft. It was ignored.

A lone FBI agent had noticed that middle eastern men were getting pilot training. She reported her suspicions which too were ignored.

The August 6th memo should have generated some action or reaction. It did not. The president was at his ranch chopping wood and clearing brush, appearing as the common man's man. It was ignored.

In the new Bush administration, all counterintelligence information had to be filtered through Vice President Cheney.

Clarke did not get to make his case until September 4, 2001.

Even without footnotes, Clarke makes it clear that it is hard to dismiss these facts. They were events that are a matter of record. The president had eight months to take any measures at all about airport security. There is one more fact. He did nothing.

Clarke's narrative here may be just the stimulus for another commission into the greatest attack upon the United States. The next commission might not be stonewalled or underfunded by an administration that has nothing to hide. With Clarke's testimony, and a former president who may have to be sworn in without the presence of his former vice president, the commission and history may judge George W. Bush harshly.

In defense of Bill Clinton, he was in office only six weeks when the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred, yet Bill never blamed his predecessor.

If President Clinton was responsible for these attacks as some have claimed, what was President Bush responsible for?

Victory has many fathers; defeat is an orphan.

A fascinating, riveting, and compelling indictment of the Bush administration. Its obsession with invading Iraq and its refusal to seriously address and deal with the al-Qaeda problem are brilliantly described by Richard A. Clarke - a terrorism expert and White House insider. No one has more or better experience or credentials to write a book like this than does Clarke. He speaks with authority and conviction; we ignore him (or scorn and ridicule him as the hatemongers on talk radio love to do) at our own peril.

He writes:

September 11 erased memories of the unique process whereby George Bush had been selected as President a few months earlier. Now, as he stood with an arm around a New York fireman promising to get those who had destroyed the World Trade Center, he was every American's President. His polls soared. He had a unique opportunity to unite America, to bring the United States together with allies around the world to fight terrorism and hate, to eliminate al Qaeda, to eliminate our vulnerabilities, to strengthen important nations threatened by radicalism. He did none of those things. He invaded Iraq.

Our nation needed thoughtful leadership to deal with the underlying problems made evident on September 11. Instead, America got unthinking reactions, ham-handed responses, and a rejection of analysis in favor of received wisdom. It has left us less secure. We will pay the price for a long time.

This book is a real eye opener. I highly recommend this wonderful book to anyone who wonders about how the gov't worked related to terrorism (under the 4 recent presidents) and how we got into Iraq.

Richard Clarke spent his long government career working to prevent what happened on September 11, 2001. But he couldn't do it alone and when he was marginalized by the White House, we were left unnecessarily vulnerable.

The first chapter of Against All Enemies reads like a thriller, and it is easy to see why Sony Pictures bought the movie rights. Clarke takes us through the events of September 11 from inside the White House. Although there was disbelief at first, it wasn't long before everyone kicked into gear and started dealing with the attack. Were there more attacks to come? Where was the President? Was Washington a target? You will relive the day as you read, imagining what you would have done if you had been a member of the tense and focused government team.

As gripping as the first chapter is, the real story of course, is the events before and after September 11. Before the attack, Clarke describes warning Condoleezza Rice about the threat of Osama bin Laden and trying to warn the President, without success. The incredible frustration Clarke experienced comes through in his book.

After September 11, it gets even worse. Even though it was obvious to everyone that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack, the President and Vice President were convinced (or pretended to be convinced) that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved, too. Clarke worked hard to dispel this unwarranted notion, but was ultimately unsuccessful. As soon as possible after the Taliban was ousted from power in Afghanistan, Iraq became the next target. Clarke argues that Iraq was not involved in the September 11 attacks and was not in cahoots with terrorists. Further, and more important, fighting a war against Iraq diverted resources from Afghanistan, where bin Laden still had not been caught, and hadn't been stopped from planning further attacks.

It seems Clarke might have given the Administration the benefit of the doubt if they had simply ignored the threat before September 11. But they refused to learn from their mistakes and continued to focus their attention AWAY from bin Laden, giving him time to regroup and giving him further ammunition in his recruiting efforts. It isn't hard to see why a man who had spent his entire adult life in counterterrorism finally had to leave government and speak out.

Against All Enemies is a great book, with behind-the-scenes descriptions, the history of counterterrorism in the U.S., and a warning for the future. Who would have thought that a career bureaucrat would be such a good writer?

It's hard to argue that there is much new here. And it is tempting to view this as Clarke's effort to vindicate himself and secure his reputation as the world's foremost authority on fighting terrorism. But the book does tie things together in convenient and well reasoned parcels, so it is a good, solid document on the issue of Islamic terrorism.

Clarke traces the arc of terrorism back to 1979 and the Revolutionary government in Iran. Afghanistan's long woes and the fall of the Soviet Union figure into the equation. He discusses the transition from state sponsored terrorism which essentially ceased at the end of the Iran-Iraq war to network sponsored terrorism of the al-Qaeda kind.

Clarke establishes his credentials and his credibility. He has been a central figure working at a high level from the White House to fight terrorism since the mid 1980's. He knows the history of terrorism. He knows its motive forces. He knows the characters involved, and their modus operandi. He understands terror's consequences. He knows what it takes to prepare good responses, and understood for at least four years prior to 9/11 how woefully unprepared the US was (and is) to respond to a large scale attack.

He lambastes the FBI for completely ignoring the problem of terrorism before 9/11, though he acknowledges that the problem is partly institutional. The FBI is barred by law from investigating crimes until they occur. And he admits the historical necessity of this point. He lambastes the CIA for completely ignoring terrorism before 9/11. Here again, he points out that the reason had to do with the agency's desire for self-preservation. In this case, a cold war institution fights to preserve its status a decade after its raison d'etre has ceased. And it does so not by engaging where it is needed, but by fighting bureaucratic turf wars. Hmm.

He spends a full chapter discussing how he built an anti-terrorism program under Clinton. He discusses how supportive Clinton was to the idea. He shows how brilliant Clinton was in selling the program to staffers and high ranking scientists. He points to some of its victories.

One such victory was the prevention of Millenium disasters. The tiny knot of people he worked with noticed that there was much 'chatter' about something happening on January 1, 2000. So alert levels were heightened. But the breakthrough was almost completely accidental. An operative on a ferry from Vancouver acted suspiciously. When confronted, he ran. His car was found packed with explosives meant to be deployed at the LA airport. His interrogation led to another cell in Jordan. A third cell failed accidentally by piling too many explosives into a small boat, causing it to sink in mid-harbor.

In one way, this example illustrates how a single centralized, small group of motivated people can energize local law enforcement people to do the leg work it takes to detect terrorist acts before they occur. If this level of functionality had been in place in the Boston Airport on 9/11, we would not be discussing that date here.

And this brings us to the question of subsequent failures. By July of 2001, Clarke was so fed up with the total lack of response of the Bush administration to even discuss the issue of terrorism that Clarke had asked to be reassigned to a lower status position working on cyper security.

Bush had been neither capable of comprehending the danger nor interested in hearing about it. He was completely uninterested in terrorism, even though (or perhaps because) Clinton had told him it was his top priority. Bush aides were spouting ideas about state-sponsored terrorism that were products of conservative think-tank fantasy. These ideas were historical dinosaurs long before George Herbert Walker Bush lost the election to Bill Clinton. But they were the gospel and all the Bush team were believers.

So arrogantly and dogmatically did they hold their prejudices that they simply would not listen to anything Clarke said. This despite the fact that Clarke was arguably the most capable, most knowledgeable, best informed, and most accomplished fighter of terrorism in the USA. It was in this as it has ever been with the Bush administration "Don't confuse us with the facts, because we already know all the answers." (My words, not Clarke's)

The section on what happened on 9/11 is slim. And the ideas about what America might have done to prevent it are slimmer. Probably 9/11 would have occurred in exactly the same way had Bill Clinton been President. The thing that could have prevented it - highly qualified and motivated airport screeners - was politically impossible in the post Reagan 'shrink government until it hurts" years. Only real hurt could change this fact. In other words, the governmental problem that contributed most to making 9/11 possible was an attitude about government inherited from the Reagan years.

But even if the catastrophe was inevitable based on the political climate, the response to 9/11 would have been different under another administration. Firstly, the Clinton administration would have focussed on Afghanistan. Tora Bora would have been shut down before bin Laden got there. Clarke's team had run the game plan already and planned to be there first. And the manhunt would not have stopped until bin Laden was captured.

The war in Iraq would never have happened. The endless and fruitless departmental shuffling in Washington to secure de "Vaterland" ahem creata a "Homeland Security Agency" and a body of law turning the US into a police state in contravention to constitutional principles and bodies of international law would not have occurred.

And in the end, America would not be doing as it is now - to quote a bumper sticker - "Making enemies faster than we can kill them."

"Against All Enemies" is an incredibly valueble resource and reference for anyone who cares about the state of the war on terror. It is very interesting and captivating to read Clarke's account of events that occured on September 11th, and at times shocking. As with all "whistle-blowers", we have to consider motives. Clark has been a top administration official for many years, and I tend to trust him because he was not a politician. He didn't have to worry about getting reelected, and it seems likely to me that he didn't write this book for money, he wrote it to give the people he was protecting an inside view of what goes on and what went on. It was not particularly shocking to me to read that some of the first words out of Rumsfeld's mouth were "Let's bomb Iraq" and I was also not surprised that Bush insisted on linking 9/11 to Iraq. This doesn't come as a surprise because when planes were crashing into the world trade centers, he thought the best use of his time was to be reading "My Pet Goat" in an elementary class.

"Against All Enemies" is for sure a historically important account of potentially corrupt actions that took place in response to 9/11. It also provides very deatiled accounts of antiterrorism activities that are important for anyone to understand.

The prose style is atrocious, even for a hastily written "instant bestseller." The badly-written "remembered" dialogue strains credulity. He recreates detail that makes him into an omniscient narrator. For example, he reads Condi Rice's mind and strongly implies she was utterly ignorant about Al Qaeda. That's more than a tiny bit presumptuous.

It also would help if just once, in his memoir, he didn't claim that he had made every call correctly. If it had been written in Lincoln's time, there would have been a passage where he writes, "I strongly opposed the choice of Ford's Theater, as the strong sentiment of the southern actors was well known. Unfortunately, my warning fell on deaf ears."

His treatment of Clinton's Mogadishu omits key facts that he must be aware of. It's utterly dishonest to say that Clinton is criticized for the deaths of 18 American soldiers. Rather, the criticism is that Clinton's response was to say, "Absolutely no more casualties. Let's formally recognized the man we were trying to arrest -- pick him up in a limousine instead of chains." Whether or not that criticism is fair, the reader deserves to hear it stated correctly before it can be rejected or accepted.

His treatment of the Millennium plot ignores the fact that NONE of his preparedness exercises were responsible for catching the LAX bomber -- it was a complete fluke, a customs official at the border deciding to pull a nervous guy out of the line, a man who then panicked and fled. Had he played it cool, LAX would have been bombed. Interestingly, Clarke's hero Sandy Berger was just convicted of illegal removing and destroying the after-action reports on the Millennium plot. A wild guess is that they painted Berger and Clarke's efforts as insufficient.

Clarke is never bothers to meet his opponents objections. He mischaracterizes arguments about the Iraq terrorism connection (arguments that he himself is on record making in the late 90's, when he claimed that the al-Shifa plant in the Sudan was making chem weapons with much help from the Iraqis). He gratuitously slanders Laurie Mylroie by totally misstating her theory about an Iraq connection to the first WTC bombing.

You'd have to go back to the Nixon Administration and its aftermath to find someone so intent on covering his ass and denying the obvious fact about his legacy.

Clarke depicts himself consistently as the smartest guy in the room in any situation. A small ego he does not have. No mean feat, considering he failed in his main responsibility for 9 years.

On the positive side, you do get an occasionally interesting behind-the-scenes look at U.S. counter-terrorism policy.

This was very controversial book during 9/11 commission process. Because, Mr. Clarke gives inside view of the Clinton Administration counterterrorist works and compares with the first 6 months of the Bush administration. Because, he resigned from Bush administration. Even you will find war on terror in past 25 years in low density. His writings show us that Clinton done far better job than public thinks. Because, public opinion was shaped under 9/11 patriotic climate, Bush hawkish behavior and his lies. It is also possible to see Osama Býn-Ladin's organization background and his improvement during the time. But the most important feature of this book is that you will see the blind determination of Bush administration on Iraq policy regardless of the facts.

This is the must read book for 9/11 and Iraq war events.

This book by Richard Clarke offers insight into America's involvement with terrorists and terrorist groups as witnessed by a person who saw it firsthand over the last two decades. The book begins with a recollection of events on September 11, 2001, goes back through the history and events leading up to it, and finishes with a commentary on the Second Gulf War and the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

This book is worth reading for numerous reasons. First, the subject itself is something that most Americans need to know a lot more about; their government's role in combating terrorism, past and present. Second, the author is one of the few Americans who actually know a lot about this subject from personal experience. As such, this book should be on the short list for any American wanting to know more about Middle East terrorism and its affects on the US. Related to this, the author has also served under several different Presidential administrations, adding an air of impartiality to his knowledge. Third, the book is fairly balanced in giving the views and explaining the actions of various groups and countries; the French, English, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, NATO, the UN, and of course Democrats and Republicans in the USA. Last, the book gives a succinct but fairly complete description of how Al Qaeda came about, its goals, and how it came to hate America. This includes a history of the Afghan War, the First Gulf War and how it provoked Bin Laden, the role of Al Qaeda in the Balkans during the 1990s, in Somalia in 1993, and in the current domestic troubles of Saudi Arabia.

The primary drawback about this book is its complete and total lack of references. Yes, the author relates a lot of events from personal knowledge, but he also states a lot of things that he himself was not involved in. Both of these should be referenced, whether it is to government documents, press releases, trial documents, newspaper clippings, other books, etc... For example, the author spends some time going over Reagan's deployment of Marines to Beirut, the terrorist attack on them, and Reagan's ensuing withdrawal of American military presence from there. I do not recall the author stating that he was involved in these decisions; therefore he is stating them as second-hand knowledge. This then calls for references to more complete texts on the subject. For a subject matter as important and for the accusations the author makes; i.e. the Bush Administration of 2000 - onwards has done a bad job fighting Al Qaeda, the author needs should have included a lot of references to back it all up. For such a glaring omission, I cannot give this book 5 or even 4 stars, but only three stars.


But read it anyways

This book is truly as its title describes it to be. That is, this book takes us way inside the war on terror.

The only trouble is, once we get inside, everything is really dark. It's almost as if someone on the outside knew all of us readers had gotten to the inside and waited until we weren't looking before he tiptoed in behind us and flipped off the lights. And then converted the whole book into a maze. And then started shooting guns at us.

It's an ugly metaphor, perhaps, but one has to realize that the unnamed subject of this book is the mind of the terrorist, and the mind of the terrorist is legion. Our president has recognized this fact, of course, and deserves credit for doing so. Unfortunately, Clarke's book seems afraid, likely out of sheer partisanship, to give Mr. Bush this due.

On the other hand, Clarke seems to imply that Clinton has certain mystical powers as a result of his reading of certain magic-realist authors.

Consider this passage in which Clarke speaks of one of his encounters with the then-president: "Clinton stopped me in the hall one day to say 'Good job on that speech in Philadelphia.' Wondering how he knew what I had said, I asked, "How the hell did you see that speech?' The President gave me a sheepish grin and admitted: 'I had C-SPAN on while I was reading last night." Checking the C-SPAN schedule, I discovered that my Philadelphia speech on the Middle East peace process had run at 2:00 a.m. On another occasion Clinton told me he had read a new book by Gabriel Garcia Marquez the night before. When I tried to get a copy of the book, I learned it had not yet been published. Clinton was reading the galleys."

Methinks Clarke has been smoking a bit of the magic-realist pipe himself when he busts into pirate-speak such as this.

Such leftist linguistical hocus-pocus seems especially dangerous in times like these, times when we should be uniting, not dividing, against a very real and grave thread . . . so that people like you and I can pledge together, as I hope in my heart-of-hearts that we will, to be against ALL enemies.

Written by the counterterrorism czar for presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and grippingly narrated by Alan Nebelthau, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War On Terror is the audiobook indictment of the failures, mistakes, greed, and self-serving agendas of the Bush administration and key members such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, as they used the tragedy of 9/11 to advance their pet plan to attack Iraq. Against All Enemies claims that the Bush administration let the opportunity to eliminate al Qaeda slip through its fingers, distracted as it was by other desires. A meticulous track record worthy of close scrutiny by every patriotic American, regardless of whether one agrees with the author's point of view.