Richard Clarke and Condoleeza Rice
Testimony by Richard Clarke regarding the lack of importance the Bush administration placed on terrorism brought an immediate (expected) attack from the Bush administration and his blindly loyal supporters. The one theme constantly repeated, and very nicely parroted by Robert C. Caldwell of the San Diego Union-Tribune, has been, "Which is the real Richard Clarke...? Is it the Richard Clarke...who charged that the Bush administration disastrously neglected the terrorist threat before 9/11? Or is it the Richard Clarke who briefed reporters at the White House, on background, in August 2002...insisting that the same Bush administration had moved aggressively to escalate the war against a gathering terrorist threat?" (San Diego Union-Tribune, March 28, 2004)
Assuming that Clarke has in fact told two different stories, let's see if there is anybody in the Bush administration who might also be accused of the same type of change. How about Condoleeza Rice, for instance? In a story published in the Washington Post ("Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism", April 1, 2004 - [Is Rice the April Fool's joke?]), Robin Wright quotes excerpts of a speech that Rice was to give on Sept. 11, 2001 – the very day of the terrorist attacks. According to the article, Rice was to say the Bush defense plan would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" and focus on missile defense instead of terrorism*. In criticizing Clinton's plans, the speech said, "We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway....[But] why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?" Clearly, the implication is that Clinton's focus on terrorism was misplaced and that his administration should have been worried about long range missiles. I guess if you consider jets to be long range missiles, there's something to that.
Additionally, "Rice intended to point out that the United States had spent $11 billion on counter-terrorism, about twice as much as it spent on missile defense, during the previous year, although the speech did not point out that that was when President Bill Clinton was still in office." As quoted elsewhere on this site, "The truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent." (William Blake) Nobody could accuse Rice of lying about this, but it is obviously intended to deceive.
As part of the attack on Clarke's reputation and reliability, the Bush administration wanted to release portions of his statements and memos. Clarke on the other hand wanted to have them all released. Who in their right mind would think that somebody who was willing to have all his work brought to public light was lying or that somebody who wanted to present portions of information was not? Common sense says that Bush, Rice, and the whole administration is hiding something and is deliberately trying to mislead the country. Again.
*Why would Bush be so interested in missiles? Watch this video on the Carlyle Group.