LW50, regail us of what you're suggesting he left out.
Dak, when you understand that in the clip presented he was speaking politically, I can assure you that he edited his tale very carefully to present a particular story. That is what smart people (and Wesley Clarke is quite bright) do when they operate in the political arena. What is put out by pols and "the truth" often have a delta between them.
Not just an issue with W Clarke.
You will also note, hopefully, that there was a considerable time lag between what he related and his speaking about it in public. Years, in fact.
Think, Dak. Why do you suppose that was?
Beyond that, I know quite a few folks who worked in the Pentagon around the time between 9-11 and the serious Op Plan prep for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Their take is similar but different to his version of what went down within the Pentagon: the contingency plan for going back to war in Iraq (I was in a CPX or two that modeled it, early-mid 90's) which had been prepped and revised frequently
for about a decade, was move to "make an op plan." Why? Because it takes for freakin' ever to put a plan that big together and then get it blessed.
Now, why did the J3/J5 folks have to do that? Someone wanted the option to activate the contingency plan. In that regard, what W Clarke was narrating was very, very old news. Ancient, actually.
For me, at the time, it was to note that the first iteration of the con plan to op plan to go forward got General Shinseki set aside, because he told the truth to politicians in power. That's what he got for doing his job.
Anyway, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe, and with your previously demonstrated bias, I am sure you will. Look up the term "confirmation bias" and I think you'll understand what I mean.