Commission Confirms Condoleezza
I haven't yet seen any comment in the news on this section of Executive Summary of the 9/11 Commission's report, which describes the transition from the Clinton to the Bush administration:
After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, evidence accumulated that it had been launched by al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that it would be held responsible for another Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a “preliminary judgment”; President Clinton and his chief advisers told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them.The transition to the new Bush administration in late 2000 and early 2001 took place with the Cole issue still pending. President George W.Bush and his chief advisers accepted that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole, but did not like the options available for a response.
***
The Bush administration began developing a new strategy with the stated goal of eliminating the al Qaeda threat within three to five years.
***
While the United States continued disruption efforts around the world, its emerging strategy to eliminate the al Qaeda threat was to include an enlarged covert action program in Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The process culminated during the summer of 2001 in a draft presidential directive and arguments about the Predator aircraft, which was soon to be deployed with a missile of its own, so that it might be used to attempt to kill Bin Ladin or his chief lieutenants. At a September 4 meeting, President Bush’s chief advisers approved the draft directive of the strategy and endorsed the concept of arming the Predator. This directive on the al Qaeda strategy was awaiting President Bush’s signature on September 11, 2001.
This narrative is a succinct summary of what Condoleezza Rice told the Commission, and rejects the testimony of Richard Clarke--which dominated the news for what, two weeks?--that a laser-like focus on bin Laden by the Clinton administration (i.e., Clarke) was lost when the Bush administration came into office and scaled back the anti-terror effort. Given that Clarke's testimony was given to the Commission, which appears to have rejected it, can we conclude that he was as unreliable a source as Joe Wilson?
UPDATE: John Podhoretz has interesting comments on two credibility issues raised by the Commission's report, and on how we should assess the relative credibility of Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger on the one hand, and President Bush and Condoleezza Rice on the other.
