"I wouldn't say that," Mr. Miller said Monday. "I might say, `How can I help.' "
Are they serious with this stuff? Just fluff noise. Anything they can get into print - they figure it's a good thing. More power to 'em. I didn't realize the above comment was a 'central element' of Mr. Clarke's account of events of 9/11 in the situation room.
Does this guy also dispute whether he ordered his cheeseburger without mayo instead of with?
Can I take an early stab at the consensus view?
1. Clarke's account compellingly suggests a deep + abiding administration focus on Iraq, pre- and post-9/11.
2. Clarke's account is less compelling about Bush administration errors pre 9/11, and relative strength of Clinton vs. Bush anti-terror policies
3. Clarke's account which read, basically, as "visionary Clarke surrounded by fools" are not compelling at all
4. If you think the invasion of Iraq is a fatal policy error w.r.t. the War on Terror, Clarke adds fuel to the fire
5. If you think Bush and co were searching around for reasons to attack Iraq, Clarke adds fuel to the fire
6. If you don't agree with "4" and don't much care about "5" (no one should deny 5: it's just true), then Clarke's account doesn't faze you much
7. If you're passionately committed to 4 and 5, Clarke's account reinforces all the things about the adminstration that drive you crazy
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03-30-04 3:53 PM
This is not 'uh-oh' - this is just nonsensical.
"I wouldn't say that," Mr. Miller said Monday. "I might say, `How can I help.' "
Are they serious with this stuff? Just fluff noise. Anything they can get into print - they figure it's a good thing. More power to 'em. I didn't realize the above comment was a 'central element' of Mr. Clarke's account of events of 9/11 in the situation room.
Does this guy also dispute whether he ordered his cheeseburger without mayo instead of with?
Loser.
Posted by Peter | Link to this comment | 03-30-04 4:28 PM