Comments on: Dick Clarke: Not Credible

By: Doug Weimer

Doug Weimer — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t know if Clarke has embellished or ‘misremembered’ things in his account. However, this particular statement is far from a ‘direct contradiction.’ His testimony that plans were given to Condoleeza Rice does not make any claim to whether or not the plans were implemented. In fact, this statement is inline with his second point in the fox transcript: “in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy.” There is no reason to expect that the National Security Advisor was not given documents in this process.

This allows for two other posibilities. Either the second point in the August 2002 briefing can be read as contradicting the first point or his use of ‘passed’ in the later testimony refers to a transfer of the policies themselves, rather than a document outlining the previous strategy. Clarke may have lied here, but it certainly is not an obvious contradiction.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I think it is. I see nothing in either statement about “implementation.” The question is whether a plan on Al Qaeda was “presented” (or “passed on” — no difference) to the Bushies from the Clintonites.

The answer shouldn’t change based on Clarke’s role — but it has, your efforts to find an innocuous interpretation notwithstanding.

By: The Southern California Law Blog

The Southern California Law Blog — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Six Pix from SoCal
Six sites that drew my attention today: Kevin Drum ponders a rumor that Condoleezza Rice will retire this year. The Legal Reader tracks more lawsuits by the RIAA. Powerline on Coulter on Clarke. Outside the Beltway comments on the Senate…