Framework of Clarke's Book Is Bolstered

[papau]

Nice of the Washington Post's Pincus and Milbank to conclude that given many aspects of the Richard Clarke assertions that have been corroborated, Clarke's alleged misrepresentations are largely peripheral to his central argument about Bush's lack of attention to terrorism before Sept. 11. I Wonder if the Wash Post Editorial board will read the column.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48455-2004Apr3.html

Framework of Clarke's Book Is Bolstered

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 4, 2004; Page A01


When Condoleezza Rice appears Thursday before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush's national security adviser will have the administration's best opportunity to rebut her former aide's stinging critique of Bush's terrorism policy.


Since former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke charged March 24 that the Bush White House reacted slowly to warnings of a terrorist attack, his former colleagues have poked holes in parts of his narration of the early months of 2001 and have found what they say is evidence that Clarke elevated his own importance in those events. <snip>


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. <snip>

[Atman]

1. Look at THIS version; appeared the same day in Hartford...

Clarke Words Cast Doubt
In 2000, He Called Terror Strategizing `Silly'

April 4, 2004
By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON -- Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief who contends the Bush administration was unprepared to deal with terrorism in the United States, told a House of Representatives panel in 2000 that it was "silly" to think the government could develop a comprehensive strategy to fight such threats.

He made those comments at a private House National Security subcommittee meeting, a 90-minute classified session on June 28 of that year.

According to unclassified staff notes from the meeting, Clarke said that instead of a coordinated strategy against terrorists, the White House had a policy of chasing what he called the "vermin du jour." As the person in charge of counterterrorism in the Clinton White House, he said, he was confident that he knew where the threats were and had the tools to act accordingly.

Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Shays, R-4th District, the only member of Congress present, found such answers unsatisfactory. "He showed us a lot of contempt. His attitude was `Why am I wasting a lot of time with you guys?"' Shays recalled Friday.

On July 5, 2000, the congressman wrote Clarke an angry letter expressing his concerns and insisting on more specific, thorough answers.

<snip>


http://www.ctnow.com/news/politics/hc-shays0404.artapr04,1,3220655.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics

--

The Hartford Courant did not run the WP story. I saw it only online, so I would assume most of the state of Connecticut also only saw the Republican spin.

[papau]

3. So Clinton/Gore would've stopped the "vermin du jour"/WTC attack - and

this bad compared to a "policy" of going to war with countries that harbor those we believe are terrorists, or going to war with countries that are thinking about/may have an intent to have Weapons of mass. destruction?

I am amazed how the media tries to spin a rotten policy as an improvement over safety to the nation.

[Auntie Bush]

2. Bush is going DOWN...unless Condi

lies her off...then she is going down. A win-win situation!