of course, the story of the day is ex-counterterrorism czar
richard clarke accusing a
wol of not being on the ball (or even in the ball park) when it came to counter-terrorism. and just as of course, the repubbbs are working overtime to discredit mr. clarke.
but you have to wonder if these guys ever think before they open their mouths. case in point, the white house press briefing for march 22.
one reporter, we don't remember who, forgive us, questioned white house press secretary scott mcclellan about
clarke's claim that a day after 9/11 a
wol asked him to pursue the links between the horrible attacks and iraq:
q: clarke now says that he has three eyewitnesses, and he repeated it again this morning, and he named them -- to the conversation.
mr. mcclellan: let's just step backwards -- regardless, regardless, put that aside. there's no record of the president being in the situation room on that day that it was alleged to have happened, on the day of september the 12th.
[ed. note: emphasis, and astonishment, ours.]
is that really what they want to go on record with? the day after the worst attacks on america in this country's history, the time when he was supposed to be leading the nation in time of crisis, they have proof that awol was never in the situation room?
where was he? clearing brush in crawford? golfing in new haven? choking on a pretzel in the bedroom?
fercryininthesink, shouldn't the leader of this country be in the situation room at least once the day after the most horrific attacks this nation has ever seen?
and even if he wasn't, does he want his minions to admit as much to the public?
cross-posted at the american street and our own never-asleep-at-our-post blog.
