About
	Contact Us
	Articles
	Topic Index
	Reports
	Quotes
	On the Web
	Links
	TW Tracker
	Support

Richard Clarke

• August 19 -- Philip Shenon Steams Rice Over 9/11
Philip Shenon puts Condi Rice on the hot plate again: "…[David Kay's] remarks were clearly aimed at her performance and reflected a widespread view among intelligence specialists that Ms. Rice, perhaps Mr. Bush's most trusted aide, and the National Security Council have never been held sufficiently accountable for intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq war."

• June 22 -- More Moore, Less Clarke
Intelligence reporter Philip Shenon pens a quasi-review of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" and goes out of his way to defend Moore. Also: What became of media hero Richard Clarke?

• April 7 -- "Preventable" 9-11 Puts Rice on the Spot?
David Sanger and Philip Shenon again claim Condoleezza Rice is under pressure, since the 9-11 commission thinks the WTC attacks were preventable. But commission leaders have never pinned blame on Bush or Rice. Also, the "uranium from Niger" legend returns.

• April 5 -- The Times Still an Anti-Condi Conduit
Douglas Jehl and David Sanger again hold Condoleezza Rice up to a level of scrutiny that anti-Bush Richard Clarke managed to avoid: "Her task seemed to become even more difficult on Sunday, when the leaders of the commission said that it was likely to conclude that the Sept. 11 attacks were preventable." But the commissioners didn't blame Bush or Rice.

• April 2 -- Clarke Commended, Rice Fried
Philip Shenon and David Sanger--surprise--bolster Richard Clarke at the expense of Condoleezza Rice.

• April 1 -- Clarke's Candor vs. Condi's Contradictions
The Times has yet to compare Clarke's 2002 pro-Bush comments with his anti-Bush allegations of 2004, but finds Condoleezza Rice guilty of an apparent "contradiction."

• March 31 -- NYT Pits Clarke vs. Rice...But What About Clarke vs. Clarke?
The Times runs an article on "discrepancies" between what Condoleezza Rice has said about 9-11 compared to recent claims made by Richard Clarke and others. But what does the Times have to say about Clarke vs. Clarke?

• March 30 -- Richard Clarke a Must-Read, Raves Risen
National security reporter James Risen likes Richard Clarke's Bush-bashing book a lot: "…if President Bush and his advisers were hoping that their loud pre-emptive attacks on 'Against All Enemies' would make this book go away, they were sadly mistaken. Richard A. Clarke knows too much, and 'Against All Enemies' is too good to be ignored."

• March 30 -- Sanger's Surprise
David Sanger, who's usually more interested in chipping at Bush's foreign policy credibility, talks to an intelligence official who calls Clarke's 9-11 memories into question.

• March 29 -- Still Standing Up For Clarke
The Times paints Clarke's 9-11 testimony as confirming the Bush administration's worst fears, while cheering Clinton's anti-terror efforts: "The evidence suggests that Mr. Bush allowed the terrorism issue to drift down the list of White House priorities from the relatively high importance given it by President Bill Clinton's national security aides."

• March 29 -- NYT Provides Platform for "Dick Clarke's American Grandstand"
Eric Lichtblau claims Richard Clarke's stories stand up to scrutiny, even though a 2002 press briefing by Clarke utterly contradicts his current anti-Bush claims.

• March 26 -- A Condi Scoop for the Times?
Condoleezza Rice is retiring?

• March 26 -- Clarke's Book a Must-Read, Say D.C. Lefties
It's still all Clarke at the Times, with two front-page stories. Rachel Swarns finds unlabeled leftists to chatter about Clarke's must-read book, while a news story concludes: "With the economy faltering and Democrats so united, Mr. Bush's terrorism credentials are portrayed by his supporters as the strongest assets he has going against Mr. Kerry. The revelations--in particular, the account offered by Mr. Clarke--could give Mr. Kerry ammunition to attack Mr. Bush on foreign policy." And the Times is pitching in.

• March 25 -- Clinton "Distracted" from Terror "By Threat of Impeachment"
The Times blasts the "lack of urgency" of the Bush administration's pre-9/11 terror efforts in an editorial on Richard Clarke's testimony--and offers a lame excuse for Clinton's inaction.

• March 24 -- Richard Clarke, "Unbowed"
The Times profiles the anti-Bush brigades' newest star Richard Clarke, portraying him as standing "unbowed" against attempts by the Bushies to "discredit" him.

• March 23 -- Richard Clarke "Undercuts" Bush: "Basic Credibility in Jeopardy"
Anti-Bush accusations from Richard Clarke make the Times front page, while a "News Analysis" enthusiastically portrays Bush as "on the defensive" with his "basic credibility in jeopardy."

E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org