quasi in rem

Saturday, March 27, 2004

WAPO Confirms that Clarke May Have Exaggerated in His Testimony: "But Clarke, who was counterterrorism director for both Clinton and Bush, has been much more critical of Bush. In testimony this week, he said al Qaeda and terrorism 'were an extraordinarily high priority' and there was 'certainly no higher a priority' under Clinton. On the other hand, he said, 'the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue but not an urgent issue.'
In fact, Clarke was constantly agitating for a more aggressive response to terrorism from the Clinton administration, including more significant bombing of al Qaeda and Taliban targets. The commission staff described him as 'controversial' and 'abrasive' and included an observation that several Clinton colleagues wanted him fired.
'He was despised under Clinton,' said Ivo H. Daalder, who worked under Clarke in the Clinton National Security Council on issues other than terrorism. James M. Lindsay, who also worked under Clarke, concurred that people 'thought he was exaggerating the threat' and said he 'always wanted to do more' than higher-ups approved. "

the worst thing about the whole Clarke saga is that people who are critical of government processes and who know how to fix them need to be heard.

If Clarke did not decide that his message had to be "Clinton was great, Bush sucked." And instead was both Presidents underperformed then we may have gotten somewhere.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home