He said/she said

Our Northern Alliance colleague Ed Morrissey over at Captain’s Quarters has performed an invaluable service brilliantly in reviewing the Clinton administration’s final national security report, issued in December 2000 and bereft of references to al Qaeda. Click here and keep scrolling up (and up and up) for Ed’s commentary on the report.
Ed’s first post on the subject appropriately concludes: “It took me ten minutes to review this document to reveal, in hindsight to be fair, how clueless the previous administration had been on terrorism and foreign policy in general. Too bad American journalists couldn’t be bothered to spend the time.”
For further discussion of the issues raised by Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 commission, as well as by the imminent appearance of Condoleezza Rice before the commission, the Boston Globe has wheeled out the person we’ve all been waiting to hear from on the subject — Anita Hill. Perfect!
Hill’s piece on the 9/11 commission — “Stakes high as Rice talks to 9/11 panel” — is a hilarious case study in Freudian projection. Hill takes us back to another blast from the ghastly past circa 1991 as she purports to address the commission proceedings: “[T]he intensity of the attention paid to the moment Rice takes the stand suggests another question — that is, whether the combined glare of the political and media spotlights will illuminate the truth or rather blind the public to it.” Indeed.
Hill adds: “If [the commission] attempts to frame the testimony as a ‘he said/she said’ battle pitting Clarke’s word against Rice’s and calling it a draw, this highly qualified body will have failed.” Again, indeed.
In the he said/she said contest posed by the contrasting views of Morrissey and Hill, we take Morrissey hands down.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line