Quote:
He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.
"decided in principle". It wasn't actually done.
|
Well yes, after 7 months, but Clarke also worked for the previous administration which had 8 years to do it and took a shot, and failed, and knew it failed, and said that was good enough.
Both sides failed. That's why the whole thing is political. Now when the media failed to give a crap about the Clarke contradictions, they had to get Feith out as an attack dog to press them harder.
Today the
WaPo notices and puts the screws to the guy (reg reqd):
Quote:
|
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.
|
Anyone can criticize post-attack. Takes a lot of gall to criticize post-attack when you were in charge and didn't complain pre-attack.