Politics & Policy

Blame Game

The Democrats' search for 9/11 "'contradictions."

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article appears in the May 3, 2004, issue of National Review.

In the weeks since former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke began promoting his anti-Bush book, Against All Enemies, it has become commonplace for the president’s critics to say there are “contradictions” or “inconsistencies” in the Bush administration’s defense of its actions in the days leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The talk became so intense that Thomas Kean, the Republican chairman of the 9/11 investigating commission, virtually demanded that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testify “under the penalty of perjury.” The New York Times reported that the chairman was moved to act because of “discrepancies” between Rice’s statements and Clarke’s.

Yet after Rice testified, Clarke himself declared, “I don’t see that there are a lot of factual problems with what Dr. Rice said.” Appearing on ABC News, where he is a paid analyst, Clarke added, “There were one or two minor points here or there that I think are probably wrong. But overall, I think she corroborated what I said.”

Given all the accusations that had been made, a fair-minded observer might be moved to ask, “What’s going on? Are there contradictions, or not?” And the answer is, mostly not. To begin with, much of the arguing about contradictions and discrepancies was simply rhetorical. Arguing from the same set of facts, administration critics said Bush did not do enough to fight terrorism before 9/11, while the president’s defenders said he did. Other controversies involved more invective than argument, as when Clarke, making the rounds of TV talk shows, said, “President Bush did nothing [about terrorism] prior to September 11.” No one who was trying to seriously portray the administration’s position on terrorism would have said that.

YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE IN THE CURRENT ISSUE OF THE NEW DIGITAL VERSION OF NATIONAL REVIEW. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SUBSCRIPTION TO NR DIGITAL OR NATIONAL REVIEW, YOU CAN SIGN UP FOR A SUBSCRIPTION TO NATIONAL REVIEW here OR NATIONAL REVIEW DIGITAL here (a subscription to NR includes Digital access).

Byron York is a former White House correspondent for National Review.

Most Popular

There Is No COVID Plan

The 2020 campaign for president has been surprisingly empty of substance since Joe Biden became the nominee. The Republicans notably didn’t even bother updating their party platform. Donald Trump’s team has spent many of the last days of the campaign making personal attacks, focused on the alleged financial ... Read More

There Is No COVID Plan

The 2020 campaign for president has been surprisingly empty of substance since Joe Biden became the nominee. The Republicans notably didn’t even bother updating their party platform. Donald Trump’s team has spent many of the last days of the campaign making personal attacks, focused on the alleged financial ... Read More
Elections

What Trump Needs to Win

On the menu today: walking through President Trump’s not-so-implausible route to 270 electoral votes, state by state, and taking a look at the gubernatorial races this year -- where GOP candidates from deep red states to a few blue ones are polling considerably ahead of Trump this cycle; and how the country ... Read More
Elections

What Trump Needs to Win

On the menu today: walking through President Trump’s not-so-implausible route to 270 electoral votes, state by state, and taking a look at the gubernatorial races this year -- where GOP candidates from deep red states to a few blue ones are polling considerably ahead of Trump this cycle; and how the country ... Read More