Both the WaPo and NY Times, the twin pillars of the SCLM are going with stories today about Clarke's corroborated charges. In
Framework of Clarke's Book Is Bolstered , Milbank and Pincus write
the broad outline of Clarke's criticism has been corroborated by a number of other former officials, congressional and commission investigators, and by Bush's admission in the 2003 Bob Woodward book "Bush at War" that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden before the attacks occurred.
In addition, a review of dozens of declassified citations from Clarke's 2002 testimony provides no evidence of contradiction, and White House officials familiar with the testimony agree that any differences are matters of emphasis, not fact. Indeed, the declassified 838-page report of the 2002 congressional inquiry includes many passages that appear to bolster the arguments Clarke has made.
while in the Times Uneven Response Seen on Terror in Summer of 2001 gives some benefit of the doubt (as always relying on the unnamed officials the Times loves to quote, as Josh Marshall points out) to the WH.
But the best story today is in Newsday:
Clarke's charges and the controversy over whether Rice would testify have hurt Bush's standing with voters on terrorism, even if they haven't diminished his overall political rating.
A Gallup poll taken at the end of March, for example, found that Bush's approval rating on handling terrorism had fallen to 58 percent, the lowest of his presidency. It found that 53 percent believe the administration is covering something up about its pre-9/11 handling of terror threat intelligence and that 54 percent feel the administration did not do all it could have to prevent the attacks.
Perhaps most ominously for Bush, the survey found that independent voters - who usually hold the balance of power in close elections - tended to believe Clarke's accusations and had grown significantly more critical of Bush's record on fighting terrorism.
Nonetheless, the WH shows themselves to be fairly delusional:
"The woman [Condi Rice] oozes expertise and sincerity," said former Republican National chairman Rich Bond. "I'm glad the White House came around to allow her to say publicly what she's already told the commission privately. The old adage is, 'Get it out, get it out, get it out.' If the Democrats want to slap around an African American woman, let them try."
Note that's a line Novak used with Rahm Emmanuel on Crossfire last week, if you had any doubts as to where Novak's talking points come from. Reuters devotes a whole story to the delusion:
Another Republican official said that Rice having the stage to herself will be a plus. "Instead of 'he said, she said,' it will be 'she said, she said,"' the official said.
Republican strategist Scott Reed said: "The only negative to it is that there was a week-long debate about her testifying. But that will be overshadowed by her having the last word."
But other Republicans see the White House argument as political spin.
"The president's reputation has been somewhat tarnished as a resolute and unquestionable terror fighter, even if she does well before the commission," said one senior Republican official.
The stage has been set for pounding Condi on these and other questions, but what will Kean and the Commission focus on?
According to the Toronto Star,
What, in Rice's recollection, was everyone up to?
According to Clarke, President George Bush turned to him the day after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and said, "Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this."
Bush's predisposition is clear enough, which may explain why, in his own appearance before the commission, he'll be holding Vice-President Dick Cheney's hand.
Rice in her testimony will be flying solo.
Commission chairman Thomas Kean is precise as to what the commission hopes to glean from the security adviser's testimony. "We want to hear from Dr. Rice about the development of policy in the first eight months of the Bush administration to the kind of threats and dangers that were apparent to her before 9/11," said Kean last week.
What, the world wants to know, was clear and present to Condi Rice?
Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband in the attacks, put it best.
"She's the national security adviser. Her sole job is to protect this nation from terrorist threats. We need to know her side of the story so that the record can be set straight."
thus nicely summing up both the likely direction of questioning and the impact of the Jersey girls on this Commission (without whom there wouldn't be a 9/11 Commission).
Repubs have convinced themselves that Condi will save the president's reputation on terrorism. But how much the Commission limits itself in questioning will determine how useful Condi's appearance will be. Will they cover how much importance Clarke gave to himself (i.e., opening gambit), or what Condi's role was in setting policy (sacrifice the Queen), or what did the Bush administration know and when did they know it (checkmate)?