. . . .that you're fussing and fuming that the rest of us want to move on.
I'm actually having fun and certainly not flogging Clarke's book. The book I'm flogging is Coll's book, Ghost Wars. What I'm flogging about Clarke is the frame, fostered by the Bushies, that tries to take the debate away from the issues Clarke raises. So we spend all our time debating whether Clarke lied in the 14th iteration of a press conference.
To repeat. The biggest issue he raised for me, and the one that had not occurred to me, was the contrast between millenium preparations and the summer of 01. That's clearly not the only issue the 9-11 commission will consider. Coll's book outlines more than enough for several commission reports. But I haven't seen serious evidence arguments yet, lessening the contrast above.
Clarke had his 15 minutes of fame. He'd have sold more books and done more harm if he could have waited until October, but alas, it was March, and now it's April, and time marches inexorably forward.
As I understand this part of the argument, and I know what you know which is only what I read in the media and recall from Clarke's testimony and one or two media appearances. Two elements in the publication date. The first is the three months period it took the Bush administration to approve it for publication. While I have no serious idea whether that was reasonable, it does sound a bit extreme, given the contents of the volume. And, second, the publication date was to be in April but the publisher sped it up when she/he heard about the hearings.
As for Laurie Mylroie, people are going to believe her arguments about the ties between Saddam and the 93 World Trade Center based on something other than widespread acceptance among folk who should know and have no particular axe to grind. Just want to know. |
