While I think that, to the extent that Clarke has done what he has done to make money, he deserves at least moral censure. To the extent that he is offering honest, critical analysis, with a view to make the counter-terrorism efforts of the government more effective, I support him and thank him for his honest criticism. The fact that he praised the Bush Administration's efforts in an interview with journalists while still employed by the Administration, that he wrote his criticisms after he did not receive the Homeland security job he wanted, is, of course, relevant in critically examining his motivations.
That being said, I think that family members of 9-11 victims are wrong to criticize Bush political ads that include images of the WTC attacks or condemn Clarke for making money off of a book on the subject.
WTC victim Ronald Breitweiser, for example, was not targeted individually, but because he was an American. The WTC was attacked because it was a quintessentially American icon, not because of any particular animus al Qaida had against the particular occupants of that building. Thus the "ownership" of the memory of the attacks is not solely the victims' families to endorse nor to condemn. The nation as a whole "owns" the memory of that attack, not just the surviving family members.
Also, I did not appreciate that Mr. Clarke took it upon himself to apologize for what he said was a failure of the government. He was not the head of State, and thus has no authority to apologize for a failure of the government. He can (and did) say that he personally failed (which might explain why he did not get the appointment in HLS), but he has no authority to apologize for the government. His apology was, in fact, mindless blather, "sound and fury signifying nothing."
[This message has been edited by Tidewater (edited 03-29-2004).]