Quote:

Darknight613 said:
The White House (taking a very long time to do so) approved the book for publication. Any classified material they wanted taken out, Clarke took out. And now that the book has been published, they're out to discredit Clarke and his facts.

So here's what I don't get. If Clarke's facts weren't true or accurate, why did they approve the book for publication? If it is true, why are they trying to discredit him? What am I missing here?



Darknight613, as I understand it, the White House doesn't have a right to tell Clarke what to say in his book. They only have the right to delete any classified intelligence that could have been inadvertantly contained in the book.

So Clarke's speculations and innacuracies, or factual conclusions, are his own, so long as they don't reveal any intelligence that has not been made public.

I think this quote bears repeating:


Quote:

Bill Plante, Washington correspondent, on the CBS Evening News broadcast, Thursday, March 25, 2004:
"In 22 hours of Senate testimony, Richard Clarke never once voiced the allegations that he raised in his book..."



There are some clear inconsistencies in what Clarke is saying. Either he lied in his testimony, or he lied in his book. Richard Clarke's two versions of the facts are contradictory.

And here's a great discussion of Clarke's testimony from Friday's PBS News Hour (two days ago):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/jan-june04/sb_3-26.html