[kabar]

I was half listening to that program. But I believe Clark did say that he had presented to both Clinton and Bush plans to attack Al Quede and kill OBL and both rejected them. I won't dismiss Clark or his allegations. But he is trying to sell a book. But of course so was everyone who came out with an anti Clinton book and I believe most of that stuff.

Besides trying to sell a book, Clarke was launching a political attack on GWB in the midst of an election year. The timing of the book and the contents are not coincidental. Particularly damning was his comments that Bush was doing a terrible job in fighting terrorism and that Iraq was a distraction. This is nonsense since Iraq has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for over a decade and we have been bogged down for more than 10 years enforcing two no-fly zones over Iraq.

[Burkeman1]

Election year or not. Plenty of anti Clinton books came out in 95 and 96 when Clinton was up for re-election. That didn't make me disbelieve them. I believe a lot worse about Clinton than what the "mainstream" will admit too. I have no love for Bush either and I won't dismiss criticism of him just because someone is labeled a partisan. Of course they are partisan against Bush! It doesn't mean they are all liars.

Iraq was on the list of terrorist sponsers (like many of our current "allies"). But hadn't attacked us as Clark said and was not behind 9/11. The point Clark was trying to make is that Bush and his administration wanted war with Iraq after 9/11 with no proof of any connection to 9/11 (that they admit now) but wanted Clark to establish a link or at least a link to AQ. He said- categorically that no operational relationship between Iraq and AQ existed and that the President was told this by him, CIA, elements in the DOD, and the FBI and yet ignored it and relied on more dubious unvetted intel by his own political appointees.