And why or why isn't the latest Clarke memo that the White House finally agreed to release a bigger story? I mean I realize some old British couple is getting married, and the US has entirely predictably refused to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea, and there are yet more dead in Iraq ... but isn't exposing (albeit for the umpteenth time) that the Secretary of State is a big liar with no integrity, and that the White House sat on its hands on the terrorism issue for 8 months pre-9/11 kind of important?
Posted by armand at February 11, 2005 11:26 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Petty Rantsespecially in light of Condi's unequivocal claim a year or so back in a major daily that the Clinton folks had left no meaningful report on al-Qaeda behind. former NSA, new sec/state, lies. straight up. not like this is news, but it's more readily verifiable than some of her other prevarications, and that makes it a story. at least until the GOP figures out a way to trash the reputation of whatever reporter takes the story on.
Posted by: joshua at February 11, 2005 02:55 PM | PERMALINKWell, I think there are other straight-up lies that were easily verifiable - say that whole business about no one foreseeing running airliners into buildings, or her shifting stories on whether or not she read the Iraq NIE (and remind me again how it was a good thing if the answer was no) - but, as you note, no one has demanded honesty from her for a long, long time.
Posted by: Armand at February 12, 2005 01:07 PM | PERMALINKI think the more important question is why nothing is sticking. Are people just uninterested in these subjects, in these people (Oh, Rice lied again, yawn), or do the Democrats have absolutely no power base to make an actual challenge. Or something else.
Posted by: baltar at February 14, 2005 10:05 AM | PERMALINK