April 07, 2004

9/11 Commission to give Clark's testimony a 2nd Look
Posted by McQ

In light of yesterday's Washington Times story it appears the 9/11 commission will give Richard Clarke's testimony as second look:

The September 11 commission will look at the discrepancy between the testimony of Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered the threat of al Qaeda "urgent" and its final national-security report to Congress, which gave the terror organization scant mention.

I say kudoes to the Times for bringing this up and the same to the commission for giving Clarke's testimony a second look. Based on my reading of the commission's interim report, there are just too many discrepencies in what Clarke said and what appears to have happened (or not happened as the case may be).



Surely you jest: how about treating the WA Times story the way you treat the ABC news story, a blog entry back -- the WA Times leaving out the fact that the Clinton report mentioned terrorism nearly 100 times, and discussed options for military action (which the R's criticized as wagging the dog: onward, impeachment!)?

my goodness, thank god for the WA Times' selective discussion of that clinton report: we can't impeach him (can we?) but we can get to that shill clarke. just don't look for the truth.

Posted by: paul parker at April 7, 2004 11:39 AM

Couple points:
1: Note that the two blog entries were done by two different people.

2: Note that, in our analysis of the Washington Times story yesterday, we specifically pointed out that the story was NOT a criticism of the Clinton administration....just a contextual comparison with recently criticised Bush administration speeches/documents.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 7, 2004 12:23 PM