Clarke in 2002 vs Clarke in 2004

More on the Clarke statements from 2002 contrasted to what he’s saying today on the air and in his new book…

Although I think the invasion of Iraq was justified and a good idea, I DO agree that it pulled resources from the bin Laden front. Unless Clarke was lying in those 2002 statements, though, Bush not only kept the Clinton policies going, but he upped the ante some.

Clarke may have been just reading from a script in that session, but isn’t most of what he said verifiable? If it’s true, a lot of criticisms I’ve heard about the pre-9/11 anti-terrorism efforts pretty much evaporate. If what Clarke said isn’t true, then of course those criticisms remain possibly valid.

But doesn’t Clarke lose some credibility if he A) Was in the loop, and B) Sold those lies as truth? That doesn’t discount what’s in the book, which of course can be investigated and possibly verified true or false. But if he lied in 2002 for political reasons, why should we be so eager to believe him now? And if he didn’t know he wasn’t telling the truth in 2002, as in he was just reading a script and he didn’t realize it was false, then he must have been out of the loop already and again his credibility suffers.

I will agree that what he claims in the book may be verifiable, but let’s at least wait until someone verifies it before proclaiming the book another nail in Bush’s coffin.

(This is from a comment I left on Nonplussed)