The NY Times starts with a weak editorial about
Richard Clarke.
[Richard Clark's] words are very much worth listening to, but it's not necessary to find all of his criticisms of the current administration equally persuasive. Mr. Clarke's central complaint -- that the president failed to respond to his urgent request for a cabinet-level meeting on terrorism until days before 9/11 -- is far from conclusive evidence that the administration failed to take the threat seriously until disaster struck.
To me, the tone is that of someone discussing developments in the art world over a latte. It shows a lot more passion in denouncing
Israel's assassination of the spiritual leader of Hamas. The third rips
Dubya's latest nominee. It has this hilarious bit:
His 10 "most significant" cases, as reported to the Senate, include one in which his team argued that bombing an island in the Northern Marianas did not violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The bombing can enhance bird-watching, his team said, because people "get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one.
The fourth hammers the city of New York for
so many changes to its recycling program.
Krugman has a high-level look at Clarke's criticisms and how Dubya attacks his critics. To me, this is a huge meta-story - how can democracy hope to succeed when the President tries to destroy those provide unflattering information about what really goes on in the White House? David Brooks wastes a column on how reading the Bible makes you a better citizen. It's not whether you read the Bible or not - it's whether you act on its lessons or use it as an excuse to do what you want. A guest editorialist argues that the new building to be built on the site of the World Trade Center "will become a top target for Islamic terrorists as soon as it is occupied." Another guest editorial draws a lesson for the post-9/11 New York from the rebirth of London after it was destroyed in the great fire of 1666.
More summaries later.