Clarke was basically right
According to Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank in an analysis article in today's Washington Post.
... [The] broad outline of Clarke's criticism has been corroborated by a number of other former officials, congressional and commission investigators, and by Bush's admission in the 2003 Bob Woodward book "Bush at War" that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden before the attacks occurred.
Of course, the pot insists that the kettle is black:
"The public continues to get different stories on different days depending on which Mr. Clarke they ask or read," said James R. Wilkinson, the deputy national security director for communications. "These contradictions directly undermine his overall case against the administration."
What about the stories the public has gotten from Mr. Bush about the reasons for his illegal war? Or from Mr. Cheney about Iraq's nuclear capabilities? Or Mr. Powell about the bioweapons? The biggest errors they can find in Clarke's statements are whether someone was in the room at a particular time and things like that. This could be important in some cases, but the Post writers state that none of the alleged errors change the gist of what Clarke is saying.
As far as I'm concerned, the case against Bush was made a long time before Richard Clarke even started writing his book. The problem isn't making a better case anymore, it's getting through the thick skulls of the millions of Americans who ignore all the evidence and support Bush, wrong or wrong.
According to Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank in an analysis article in today's Washington Post.
... [The] broad outline of Clarke's criticism has been corroborated by a number of other former officials, congressional and commission investigators, and by Bush's admission in the 2003 Bob Woodward book "Bush at War" that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden before the attacks occurred.
Of course, the pot insists that the kettle is black:
"The public continues to get different stories on different days depending on which Mr. Clarke they ask or read," said James R. Wilkinson, the deputy national security director for communications. "These contradictions directly undermine his overall case against the administration."
What about the stories the public has gotten from Mr. Bush about the reasons for his illegal war? Or from Mr. Cheney about Iraq's nuclear capabilities? Or Mr. Powell about the bioweapons? The biggest errors they can find in Clarke's statements are whether someone was in the room at a particular time and things like that. This could be important in some cases, but the Post writers state that none of the alleged errors change the gist of what Clarke is saying.
As far as I'm concerned, the case against Bush was made a long time before Richard Clarke even started writing his book. The problem isn't making a better case anymore, it's getting through the thick skulls of the millions of Americans who ignore all the evidence and support Bush, wrong or wrong.
<< Home