Clarke part L

Well that was quick.  Page 212-3 of the report convinces me that "Against all Enemies" contains a not at all  trivial factual error.

In my post below I said there was no remaining issue on which I was convinced that Clarke wrote something false.  Now I will, among other things, show what it takes to convince me.  I have read up to the 9/11 commissions report on the September 4th principals meeting on counter terrorism and al Qaeda.  Clarke described Rumsfeld as looking bored in that meeting and making some comment about state sponsorship or Iraq or the low value of al Qaeda training camps as real estate (I don't have the book with me and am vaguely paraphrasing from memory).  The Bush administration claims that Rumsfeld was not present. 

Showing I really really don't trust them, I was unconvinced, although a lie about who was at a principals meeting would be easy to catch.  Now I am convinced that Clarke was wrong, since I accept the 9/11 commissions view on this simple matter of fact.

At the September 4 meeting, the principals approved the draft presidential
directive with little discussion.
[snip]
The Defense Department favored strong action. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz
questioned the United States’ ability to deliver Bin Ladin and bring him
to justice. He favored going after Bin Ladin as part of a larger air strike, similar
to what had been done in the 1986 U.S. strike against Libya.