No wonder his nib's poll numbers are tanking.

"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country," Clarke told Vanity Fair. "My role was to say that it can't happen unless the FBI approves it. . . And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said `Fine, let it happen.' "

How come you didn't include this in your original post?

Clarke has been discredited on so many levels it is ceasing to be funny. Yet the whack job left still treat him like a paragon of virtue.

Why do you folks think you keep losing elections? Because you have lost all sense of reality and proportion.

Quit acting like partisan idiots during a time of war and maybe.. just maybe America can take you seriously again.

Of course you will don your tinfoil hats and ignore the point. That's why you keep losing power.

Clarke keeps telling us how he was the only one that knew what was REALLY going on.

If that was the case, why the HELL did he defer the decision to the FBI when he KNEW what was going on???? Why didn't he stop them?

DUH! You never thought of that!

The circular logic is amusing. A whole 'nother meaning for spin...

Me being in Canada I constantly get to watch all those documentaries regarding, for instance, those Saudi-loaded planes stealthly departing USA right after the attacks. Sadly, it would be rash to conclude that it was Clarke-only decision. Really, where was the prez looking and all those other brainy folks at the top? Could a bureaucrat worthy of his name work against his own bosses while under duty? That would be scandalous.

The canadian media (they're so nasty, I know) tried their best to show that Bush and Co had rather close ties (oil? oil) with the Saudis and Bin Laden's extremely large and powerful family. Sure, this looks pretty crazy - since some in that family actually financed some bad stuff that gave such a bad name to "Bin Laden". What's crazy is that it's not all that black-and-white as people like Paul would wish to believe. Yes, your President talks to you as if you were little children, of "liberty" and the "axis of evil" and "war on terror" - and it is the sacred mystery of high politics that those at the top of the world are somehow able to reconcile mind-boggling entaglements and very impure contradictions.

The top of the world is not pure and shining - it's pretty ugly up there, messy big time. Clarke's disgruntled attack is one instance of that messiness being brought to light, and it looks bad, sure does, but you better take a close look and pinch your nose for all the stink.

But don't just say it's not there.

*He claims on 9/12 Bush "intimidated" him in the situation room. There is a problem with that story. Bush did not go into the situation room on 9/12. (a President's every move is recorded.)

*He claimed Dr. Rice never heard of al Qeada. She was talking about it during the campaign.

*He claimed Clinton had a terrorism plan and Bush ignored it. Problem is he told reporters years ago that Clinton had no such plan.

*He claimed Bush asked him if there is a link to IRAQ. AND BUSH DID. Clarke ALSO says that Bushed asked him to also consider if it was Al Qeada, Hamas, and Hezbola. (DUH! That is the President's job.)

The list goes on and on.

He claimed all sorta of stuff that is not true. It is far from a personal attack to point out that he is not telling the truth.

The only people that still believe Clark also believe the war was about oil and Al Gore invent the internet. Ya can't reason with crazy people. Hal is a prime example.

Paul

And it's stunning to think that the best they could come up with the slime strategyt they are pursuing. Tom Daschle put it best

"I couldn't be more disappointed in the White House's response," he said. "They have known for months what Mr. Clarke was going to say. Instead of dealing with it factually, they've launched a shrill attack to destroy Mr. Clarke's credibility."

The explanation that James has given is that "it's no big deal" and just kind of shrugs it off. I'm wondering if that was the strategy of the administration and then they just forgot about it because they were more focused on the campaign and their ad war.

The real tragedy here is that even the lessons that Clarke would want us to learn don't seem to be sinking in. Certainly the people attacking Clarke in such a ridiculous way don't even notice there are lessons here that even they can learn - even if Clarke is a scumball.

The transitioning in of a new Administration is a vulnerable time for America. Regardless of the political spin, one lesson is that our political system demands that the incoming administration actually listen to the outgoing, previous administration.

They can't just come in with dripping contempt and say they know what their priorities should be. A lot more humility and thought about transition plans should be put in by the winner of an election. A terrorist strike when you're preocupied with tax cuts and such is something we can predict in the future.

A criteria we should be applying to Kerry, no doubt. Some intrepid reporter should ask the man how he would handle the transition with the Bush administration. How would he weigh the evidence and priorities reported to him by Bush's staff?

Instead of trying to play "gotcha" on whatever narrow point your trying to make to discredit the source, you would serve your political party well to speak to the substantive facts.

After all, terrorism isn't going away and it's a heck of a lot more important than tax cuts, ABM systems and whatever else it is that GW stands for.

Which is why the whole Iraq war is such a boondoggle. We're spending inordinate amount of lives, money, time and diplomatic capital on something that has only the most tenuous of threads connecting it to the "war" on terrorism. It's not like we have infinite resources, you know.

Were Clarke's statements consistent, he could show that to be the case. Since they are not, he is left no recourse but to say, in essence, 'Well, I was lying then. But I'm not now; the fact that, whereas I had nothing personal to gain before but just happen to be promoting a book now, has nothing to do with it!'

And some credibility attacks are actually effective. But no one except the already converted seem to be buying the one's being ladled out. Not a good sign that the strategy is working. The republican party faithful isn't the target audience.