Clarke part XLIX

When Richard Clarke's book appeared, his claims were subject to, shall we say, unusual scrutiny.  For example his claim that Bush asked him 3 times whether there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 on 9/12 was contested until the Bush administration realised that it was supported by 4 eyewitnesses.   One of the very few errors that seemed (to me) to have been found in the book or in his various interviews (or testimony) was the date of the first deputies meeting which discussed al Qaeda.  He wrote that it was on April 30th.  The Bush administration claimed that it was on March 7th.  Since the issue was foot dragging this is important.  In his sworn testimony Clarke seemed to me to be hedging.  Thus I considered it an error conceded and not a totally trivial one.  Now the 9-11 commission explains the discrepancy

Hadley convened an informal Deputies Committee meeting on March 7,
when some of the deputies had not yet been confirmed. For the first time,
Clarke’s various proposals—for aid to the Northern Alliance and the Uzbeks
and for Predator missions—went before the group that, in the Bush NSC,
would do most of the policy work [snip].

The full Deputies Committee discussed al Qaeda on April 30.

Clarke brought up the April 30th meeting not to stress the late date but to quote Wolfowitz arguing that al Qaeda must have had state support probably from Iraq (the hypothesis of Laurie Mylroie).   I assume that Wolfowitz had not yet been confirmed on March 7th (I could and should check but I won't).

The non Clarke obsessed rest of humanity will not be interested, but I stress this was the only point on which I was convinced Clarke had misstated the facts.  Now it's down to zero (but note the word convinced).