So Richard Clarke's accusing the Bush Administration of being not just weak on terrorism, but willfully ignorant (Condi was like "Al who?") and criminally negligent (Rummy was like "But Iraq has better targets!"). OK, what are the Bush attack dogs going to do?
First, make Clarke look like a bitter ex-employee, that everything he is saying is politically motivated, it's all lies. Fine. (Ignoring the fact that he was hired by Reagan and served as Counterterrorism czar for 30 years.) Clarke doesn't know what he's doing? But, hm, what did the National Review publish on Sept.11, 2003? An interview with Richard Miniter who wrote a totally fair and balanced book called Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror in which he said this:
At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
Hm. This looks to be their second line of attack: blame Clinton. But Clarke makes it clear as he did on Charlie Rose last night, that Clinton did want to pursue strikes in Afghanistan, but ran up against a little controversy about getting a blowjob somewhere with some woman. Remember Wag the Dog?Posted by tmonkey at March 23, 2004 11:53 AM