Interesting -- Rice admits that what Clarke says about the rejected meetings/briefings was true -- but says that doesn't matter. The meetings weren't necessary because all the principals understood the threat. OK. They "wanted a new strategy." Great.
However, none of that is inconsistent with Clarke's asessment that the terror threat from bin Laden was not at or near the top of the Administration's foreign policy priorities in early 2001.
Clarke's assessment is consistent with the quotes from Shelton re Rumsfeld deemphasizing anti-terror military intelligence at the JCS level, because Rumsfeld wanted to focus on restruturing the military, and on missile defemse.
That is also consistent with the quotes from Gen. Kennan (?) (former depty-NSA) that the high levels weren't focused on al Qaeda at that time, despite his urgent warning.
Clarke assessment is also consistent with Rice's very thoughtful piece that appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine during the 2000 campaign -- listing the greatest foreign policy challenges facing the U.S. in the coming years. (Ty cited it yesterday, I read it at the time, and remember thinking that it was very well done.) Terrorism was barely mentioned -- terrorism by non-state actors not at all.
Cheney says, essentially, that Clarke was "out of the loop" (i.e. he didn't know what the admin. was doing on terrorism at the highest levels from Jan - Sept. 2001.). That may be true, but its the Chewbacca defense -- since it is always irrefutable. Were Shelton and Kennan also out of the loop?
Rice then says this about Clarke:
"But what's very interesting is that, of course, Dick Clarke was the counterterrorism czar in 1998 when the embassies were bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar in 2000 when the Cole was bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar for a period of the '90s when al Qaeda was strengthening and when the plots that ended up in September 11 were being hatched."
So, what's your point, Condi? How does that detract in any way from the substance of what Clarke says about Jan. - Sept. 2001. Guess what, Condi, you were the NSA (the boss of the counterterrorism czar) when the U.S. suffered the most serious terrorist attack in its history, costing some 2,500 lives. So, go ahead, blame Clarke. I hate that this intelligent, serious policy-maker is acting as a political flack.
If Shelton or the other general were speaking out publicly now (which they won't), instead of in interviews for that book in 2001-2002, would we be treated to the administration smearing them as well?
S_A_M
[eidted - some typos]
