I propose that the blame there lies on the shoulders of Bush and friends. It isn’t like Richard Clarke just randomly decided to make up stories to sell a book (though granted, you might view it as such). As you say, the “political grandstanding” and “chronic lies” of the Reps forced Clarke (and others) to leak the truth.
Oh no! Condi Rice had to testify and tell the truth because someone ratted out their blatant lies! Poor baby! It is the end of the world! O_o
The only administration that would totally clean house and install their own drones obviously has some major plotting and scheming to hide. I doubt the public (much less Congress) would appreciate such a gesture.
I find it far more plausible that Clarke lied in his book - and the facts support it.
Try reading the December 2000 A NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR A GLOBAL AGE - the Clinton Adminitration’s final report to Congress about national security. Al Qaeda isn’t even mentioned; and bin Laden is named only four times. This quite plainly contradicts Clarke’s assertion that AQ was a top priority.
which part of clarke’s lying book deals with the crawford plan to avenge the cole–a direct attack on a military asset!!!
I understand that one of clarke’s lies is that bush sat around with his tghunb up his ass, after definitive responsibility for the attack had been assigned to al q.
what was it exactly that your hero did, my cleavage sporting airplane sufer?
I read in the March/April 2004 Utne Reader (Utne - Cure Ignorance) that al-Qaeda originally was an organization of Asiri Arabs (a minority ethnic group in southern Saudi Arabia) who resent the rule of the Saud family. (You can’t get the whole story at the link I provided, not without paying money to subscribe.)
Well, “stalled” is a term of art, no? We are already advised that the White House must “vet” the report before it can be released to the teeming. A line by line analysis simpy must be conducted to ensure that no dread threats to national security lurks therein. We are futher advised that they do not expect to be done with this painstaking process until after the election, as this is only April, and a project like this…well, very time consuming, don’t you know.
As to whether this qualifies as “stalling”, that is a matter of perspective. To this eye, it is indeed stalling, since the justification is so patently absurd. As I mentioned previously, the hearings were public for a large part to begin with. Those portions which were conducted outside the immediate glare of public scrutiny are known to many, many people. There is precious little security to be maintained in a situation like this, and everybody knows it.
Therefore, the possibility that some desperately important morsel of national security information might be revealed if the White House should somehow fail to be knowledgeable of the reports contents is slim at best.
That, in my estimation, qualifies as “stalling”. I have little doubt that your mileage most emphaticly varies.
I could wrap Betty Page around my pony tail.
Given that Kerrey already de-classified the centerpiece of the inquiry - the mythical August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing, there is no political gain for the Bushies to delay the final report. Quite the contrary - they would be playing into the opposition’s hands to do so.
Does it then follow that there is very little new information in this report? Nothing much of interest? Does it then follow that it doesn’t matter when this report is released? If not, why not? Elucidate, please.
I mean, if it’s all old news anyway, who cares when the report is released?
