Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you're going to demand that people say things that aren't self-serving, that's a pretty high standard. Just about Bush says is self-serving, and it doesn't seem to bother you.

What I am demanding is that we as a nation take a long and hard look at someone who is willing to point figures in connection with the biggest catastrophe in our history, and one that will have ramifications for probably the next half-century. What I find both particularly disturbing and curious is that he says the Clinton Adminstration "got it" while at the same time did nothing when the world trade center was bombed, 2 embassies were bombed. the Cole was bombed, and the LA airport was attempted to be blown up. This is NOT a dig at the Clintons. It is a dig at Clarke, because I can't see how he could come to that conclusion given those events.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No, he said Rumself was inattentive during the meeting, or something like that. Interesting that you just accept the proposition that Rumsfeld wasn't there, as if Clarke must be wrong in a "he-said/she-said" situation.

I accept it because the WH keeps logs for these kinds of things, and the reports I've read are that there is no record of him being there.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop More importantly, so what? Who cares whether Rumsfeld was or wasn't at a specific meeting? It's clear from the book that Clarke wasn't keeping notes all along a la Dean Acheson or someone like that. He wasn't planning to write a memoir, and the book isn't as detailed as other memoirs. But that hardly detracts from the important points about (1) counterterrorism before 9/11 and (2) Iraq.

Again, it's important because it goes to his crediblity. There are some things he has said that I find credible, such as the Administration underestimated the threat. This is obviously true, but it was also true for the Clinton Administration and the rest of the country. 9/11 was the wake up call, and I do not really fault either the Clintons or the Bushies for 9/11, because I don't think it could have been prevented by either. What I don't find credible is his emphasis that Iraq caused us to drop the ball on Al Qaeda. What more could we have done once they retreated to the Paki border? We have just recently gotten the Pakis to be more willing to help us out, but that has taken time and negotiation.