Washington Post is starting to have second thoughts about the public testimony of Dick Clark. This piece written by Dana Milbank and Dan Eggen says this: "The commission’s determination that the two policies were roughly the same calls into question claims made by Bush officials that they were developing a superior terrorism policy. The findings also put into perspective the criticism of President Bush’s approach to terrorism by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief: For all his harsh complaints about Bush administration’s lack of urgency in regard to terrorism, he had no serious quarrel with the actual policy Bush was pursuing before the 2001 attacks.
Clarke did not respond to efforts to reach him for comment yesterday." This is in contrast to the
piece Eggen and Walter Pincus wrote on Thursday, or the Milbank piece of Thursday, where she claimed Clarke stole the show.
Let me bring to your attention Rick Lowry’s piece (again), in which he claims that Clarke has collapsed. And last, and best, is Bill Kristol’s devastating attack on Clarke (and the media), noting this exchange between Commission member Slade Gordon and Clarke:
GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?