CNN has a nice story up contrasting testimony given by Richard Clarke and Condi Rice before the 9/11 commission. Surprisingly, once you weed through all of Rice’s stalling comments, it seems that Rice pretty much agrees that what Clarke said happened did happen. I wonder if this will stop the smear campaign that is being waged on Clarke?
The strangest testimony that Rice gave regarded possibly retaliating for the attack on the USS Cole. Rice said: “Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists…” So attacking would embolden the terrorists more than not responding to an attack on a naval vessel? Does that make sense to anyone?