I'm not sure what Clarke is admitting. Here's what I mean:
"The Hill said a political controversy has been brewing over who approved the six controversial flights that carried 140 Saudi citizens."
-- And --
"Most of the 26 passengers aboard a Sept. 20, 2001, fight were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened, The Hill said."
-- And --
"But this new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke's sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March, The Hill said."
"The request came to me, and I refused to approve it," Clarke testified. "I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the at the time No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved the flight."
So, was Clarke lying then or is he lying now?
For sure it's hard to tell when a liar is lying but I tend to think that he was more likely to be lying in his public testimony.
He was selling a book, he was getting his 15 minutes and trying to make it look like the White House approved the flights just made his story better.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that we could lay blame for a lot more than bin Laden family flights at the feet of Richard Clarke.
Forgot to say that I really like your handle. My mom used to sing that song when I was a wee tot.