The following excerpts from Newsweek’s “Storm Warning,” coverage of the Richard Clarke book Against All Enemies, raise serious questions about the competency of the article’s authors Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas:
1. How many anonymous White House sources did these “journalists” cite to refute Clarke’s case?
2. Why do these “journalists” feel the need to protect the identities of these defenders of the White House?
3. Which “records” showed “these investigative journalists” that the President was not in the situation Room at the time Clarke recalls?
4. What evidence did these investigative journalists uncover to contradict media reports “that Bush was not specifically warned that Al Qaeda might be planning on hijacking airplanes to crash into buildings”?
5. Could these “investigative journalists” not find anyone (anonymous or not) to counter the charges against Clinton in the Coll book?
6. If these journalists feel that Clarke is discredited as a “neutral” source after 30 years of public service to both Republicans and Democrats because of his friendship with Rand Beers, who also served both Republicans and Democrats, who might qualify in their keen eyes as “a neutral source” (other, than say, Laura Bush?)?
“A White House official told NEWSWEEK…”
“…and that records show the president was not in the Situation Room at the time Clarke recalls.”
“As Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll recently showed in his book "Ghost Wars," those in the national-security bureaucracy under Clinton spent more time wringing their hands and squabbling with each other than going after Osama bin Laden. And Clinton never stepped in and ordered his troops to stop dickering and do the job.”
"A White House official countered that the true fault lay with Clarke for failing to propose an effective plan to go after Al Qaeda. On Jan. 25, this official told NEWSWEEK, Clarke submitted proposals to "roll back" Al Qaeda in Afghanistan by boosting military aid to neighboring Uzbekistan, getting the CIA to arm its Predator spy planes and increasing funding for guerrillas fighting the Taliban. There was no need for a high-level meeting on terrorism until Clarke came up with a better plan, this official told NEWSWEEK. The official quoted President Bush as telling Condi Rice, ‘I'm tired of swatting flies.’ Bush, this official says, wanted an aggressive scheme to take bin Laden out."
“A spokesman for Wolfowitz described Clarke's account as a ‘fabrication.’ Wolfowitz always regarded Al Qaeda as ‘a major threat,’ said this official.”
“Contrary to some media reports, Bush was not specifically warned that Al Qaeda might be planning on hijacking airplanes to crash into buildings inside the United States.”
"While casting doubt on Clarke's account of a conversation with Bush in the Situation Room on Sept. 12, White House aides do acknowledge that Bush wanted to know of any links between Saddam and Al Qaeda."
“Not true, says a White House official, who adds that in any case the argument was irrelevant by late September, since Bush had already decided to put off a decision on attacking Iraq to concentrate on Afghanistan.
“Clarke is perhaps not the most neutral source. Last year Clarke's best friend, Rand Beers, quit as the White House's counterterrorism chief after complaining—over glasses of wine on Clarke's front porch—about the wrong-headedness of Bush's plan to invade Iraq. Beers is now a principal foreign-policy adviser to Kerry.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4571338/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(306 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
