In the day's excitement over the Richard Clarke testimony perhaps one of the most important stories of the day has been lost.
Condoleeza Rice has been on a nationwide talk-show tour to promote the President's pre-911 war plans against AQ. On page 21, in the continuation of their front page story , the NY Times says
Although the strategy paper is classified, Ms. Rice, the security adviser, cited it on Sunday in defending the administration's efforts in an opinion article in The Washington Post in anticipation of the release of Mr. Clarke's book. She said the document was prepared before the Sept. 11 attacks and outlined a tough new policy in controlling and eradicating Al Qaeda, including "military options to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived."
In the online version of this story this is where the story ends. However, in the early print edition which I received hear in Atlanta (i.e. the edition that doesn't go through such a thorough edit because it needs to be rushed out the door), the very last paragraphs of the article says this:
Ms. Rice has refused to testify before the commission, saying it would violate precedent for an incumbent national security advisor to appear before a commission created by Congress.
Here comes the crucial portion:
But under questioning, deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted her and said the paper had no military option before the Sept. 11 attacks.
"No" Mr. Armitage said "I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11"
Why the contradictions? Why is Rice (who refuses to testify under oath) building up a document that Armitage says is not what she makes it out to be? What is Armitage trying to tell us, and would he tell us more if the questions were framed the right way?
Perhaps more importantly what happened at the New York Times that led:
- First, to placing this crucial section in the very last paragraph of a story buried inside on an extremely busy news day?
- Second, to drop the section entirely in their internet version where they have no word count restraints.
My hunch is that someone at the New York Times thinks this is a very important story, but others at the paper (for whatever reason) don't see it that way.
If the New York Times won't cover it, I think someone should. Here is an outline for a cub reporter looking to make a name for themselves.
a. Define the document in question
b. What does Rice say about it?
c. What does Armitage say about it?
d. Ask Rice and Armitage for comments on the discrepancy?
e. Ask others about the document?
f. Ask Rice whether she would be willing to testify under oath about her statements regarding the document?
My sense is that Rice is the weak link here. She knows the entire story, the warnings from Intelligence and State, as well as the diversions by the President. This is why she won't testify under oath. However, put the pressure on the administration and they might be inclined to hang her out to dry as the fall guy.
Further, this story about the pre-911 "classified plan" reeks of a blatant and coordinated propaganda campaign. It smells so bad in fact that Armitage wants nothing to do with it.
This is where to press next. Let the mainstream press wallow in the Clarke details awhile, our job is to press the ball up court, and this "classified plan" appears to be a major administration miscalculation.
If I had the time to pursue this further (instead of actually go to work) I would start with the NY Times authors of the piece:
Philip Shenon
Richard W. Stevenson
And especially non-byline writer: Elizabeth Bumiller