All opinions posted. None too pathetic or contrived. Everyone gets their say.

"...even the wicked get worse than they deserve." - Willa Cather, One of Ours

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

The Clarke Accusations

There is one certain way to know if Clarke's accusations are true. Test the one part of his story that can be verified. Clarke has mentioned that there were five witnesses to his confrontation with Bush. So why not ask the witnesses?

I have seen reports that these witnesses have stated that the conversation (which apparently took about a minute) did in fact take place. But that kind of statement isn't very helpful.

What we need to know is if Clarke's perceptions of what happened are accurate. Clarke said Bush was hostile and attempted to intimidate him into creating a memo that would accuse Iraq of 9/11. What was Bush's demeanor? How did he phrase his order? What was his tone of voice? Did the other witnesses see this event in the same way that Clarke did, or was Clarke delusional?

As far as I can tell from searching the Internet, no reporter has gotten any of the witnesses to comment on the specifics of this conversation/confrontation (other to reconfirm that some sort of conversation did happen). Why not? This could be the story of the decade. It has been almost a week since the media got the book and there has still been no interview with the witnesses on this matter?

So, test Clarke’s story here. If the witnesses don’t support his interpretation of what occurred, then his other accusations are likely to be false and can be ignored. But, if he is vindicated by the witnesses, then it seems likely that the rest of his book is true, and Bush should be impeached for gross misconduct.

There must be some reporter out there with a little ambition. I mean, they can't all be a bunch of lazy stenographers posing as professional journalists.

Posted by: Zayphar / 3/23/2004 04:32:00 PM


<< Home