Clarke Ripples

So far the best comment on the Clarke fallout I've seen is Billmon, who points out how bad it looks for Dr. Rice to refuse to testify to the 9/11 commission. Even if there is a valid separation of powers argument, isn't it the case the “9/11 changes everything”? Or so we've been told… [A commentator on the Billmon site says that not only did the NYT assign Judith Miller to the story, a very weird choice indeed, but it apparently buried the story on page 17! Surely not? The Post, at least, front-paged it.]

Apparently there's also a great 9/11 article in the Wall St. Journal, showing all the inconsistencies in the administration's story about what it did on 9/11, but that's subscription only online so I'll have to chase up a hardcopy…

And, White House Reels From Insider Expose.

And, today's event, the Center for American Progress website publishes href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039">newly revealed internal FBI and Justice Department documents that it says substantiate several of Clarke's charges of Bush administration inattention to terrorism in the face of “repeated warnings”.