Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I think Clarke is in it for Clarke - not to sell books, but because he has an ego problem and was not happy with his reduced roll in this admin. This is not to say that some of his critism is not valid, but many discrepencies have been pointed out in the last week, and I suspect that Rice will point out more this week.
|
Please explain. When you refer to his reduced role, do you mean that Rice forced him to meet with deputies instead of principals? He's certainly pissed about that, but moreso because it kept counterterrorism on the back burner during 2001. Or do you mean that he moved to cyberterrorism? Because his book says that he requested that move, and points out that people cycled in and out of his former job after he left.
I have yet to see a "discrepancy" that stands up on examination. Why don't you post the most damning one you can think of.
eta: This
article in today's Washington Post examines the attacks on Clarke and observes that his story stands up. Indeed, unnamed White House officials apparently agree:
- The most sweeping challenge to Clarke's account has come from two Bush allies, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Fred F. Fielding, a member of the investigative panel. They have suggested that sworn testimony Clarke gave in 2002 to a joint congressional committee that probed intelligence failures was at odds with his sworn testimony last month. Frist said Clarke may have "lied under oath to the United States Congress."
But 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.
In addition, a review of dozens of declassified citations from Clarke's 2002 testimony provides no evidence of contradiction, and White House officials familiar with the testimony agree that any differences are matters of emphasis, not fact. Indeed, the declassified 838-page report of the 2002 congressional inquiry includes many passages that appear to bolster the arguments Clarke has made.
