I suppose you think that the publication of the book and the timing of his testimony are simply coincidences, then.
I believe the timing had two components. First, he says he gave it to the White House for security clearance in October of 03, hoping to get it published for the Xmas book buying season. That makes sense. The WH took three months to do the clearance. So we are in to January before the WH let's it go. Second, I believe the publisher then set a publication date of sometime in April, learned that Clarke was doing his 9-11 commission testimony in March, and, who is to quarrel with this motivation, the publisher decided they could make a great deal more money if they got it out around the time of Clarke's 9-11 testimony.
Clarke is as pure as snow driven soot. If you don't consider his motives, then you will uncritically accept what he has to say. But since he is on your side, that's not so bad, is it?
Clarke is hardly that pure. At the moment, the only believable observations about Clarke I have are the one's Ken posted on the thread from his source, the one we all know. I read the same comments in the Sacred Terror book. And they are comments that Ken's source has made over the years we've known him.
As for uncritically, I will be happy to be critical when there is material that does so. The 9-11 commission staff material basically supports Clarke's version of events. And remember that staff is run by Zelikow, a Rice confidant.
No doubt we will find some things wrong with Clarke's account. But it's apparent, the paper trail supports the notion that the Bush foreign policy team was focused, until 9-11, on nation states as dangers to US security. And, most telling, as soon as the Afghan period settled down a bit, went back to the nation state argument, the better to attack Iraq. |
