The White House has come out, guns blazing, to undercut Richard Clarke. Condoleeza Rice herself, her top aide and the White House press secretary have gone before the TV cameras. Rice said he didn't know what was going on. The press secretary said Clarke's charges were ridiculous. Off-camera, it’s being suggested that Clarke has personal and political reasons for what he’s done.
What has Clarke done? He has written a book saying that Bush and his top advisers paid little or no attention to alQaeda before 9/11. That after 9/11, Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to go after Iraq, even pressured him to find an Iraq- alQaeda link.
Worse yet, Clarke says Bush’s war on Iraq weakened the war on terrorism.
I don’t find any of this new. So why the quick, powerful response?
Because Clarke has credibility. He worked in counter-terrorism under Reagan, the first Bush, Clinton and the current Bush. And nothing threatens the President’s hope for reelection as much as the idea that he has been weak in fighting terrorism.
Clarke is scheduled to testify before the "independent" commission this week.
I expect the members of that panel loyal to Bush will treat him roughly. How will he stand up to it? Will anybodycome to his defense?
The plot thickens.