Removing any doubt that Richard A. Clarke lacked credibility, he has now been endorsed by Barbra Streisand
HOLLYWOOD (Talon News) -- Actress, singer, and left-leaning activist Barbara Streisand belted out a new round of attacks against President Bush, this time criticizing what she calls a lack of effort in combating terror before September 11, 2001.
Streisand praised former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke who has been pointedly critical of his former boss' performance in prosecuting the war on terror.
This allowed said petty, partisan bureaucrat to attack the administration for not having paid attention to his warnings. Even though he admits that no plan existed that would have foiled or mitigated the attacks.
Does it not reflect more poorly on Mr. Clarke who, one may accuse, sat with his thumb up his butt for eight years after the first WTC bombing and the attack on the USS Cole?
I think the real story is that further attacks may have been deferred by President Bush's muscular response. In Chicago, L.A. towers were next targets says The Washington Times says exactly that:
LONDON -- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.
Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.
Lastly, I would again ask about media bias. Does anybody think that a conservative of equal credibility could make similar charges with a new book and receive similar coverage, attention, or benefit of doubt?