Not sure why Clinton would be "surprised"; it could be a simple matter of different compartmentalization. Even if the two men operate from similar assessments of all these "challenges", if items 2 and 5 on Clinton's list are two heads of the same larger hydra then they would easily overtake item 1, presumably in Clinton's eyes as well as Bush's. Of course, Clinton would probably challenge the notion that 2 and 5 are related, indeed a big part of his foreign policy was founded upon the axiom of their disjointness.
But all evidence indicates that this is what Bush believes. That 2 and 5 are artificial subcategories of the real item #1.
...the current controversy over whether President Bush allegedly neglected the war on terrorism in his single-minded preoccupation with bringing down Saddam Hussein,
So "single-minded" that he invaded Iraq a mere 19 months after 9/11/2001. And in the meantime he launched and concluded some other war, against some other country. Clearly the man was OBSESSED!
the man who plotted the assassination of his father.
Among other things, which I suppose are all not important.
The "Bush was obsessed with Saddam cuz he tried to kill his father" conspiracy theory is exceedingly bizarre to me. A President's son, surely, knows that his father is the President, and that people will try to kill him for that reason. Especially if that son is 40+ years old when it happens. This risk comes with the territory of being President, so I just don't buy the idea at all that this would call for "revenge". People who say this, and assume that other people (like Bush) think this way, are betraying something very strange about their own thought process.
the White House seemed obsessed with Saddam Hussein as "a bad person who needed to go."
And... he wasn't?
Clarke says that ousting Hussein was "Topic A" from the first NSC meeting
How shocking.
there was little discussion of why the Iraqi dictator was being targeted.
Perhaps because it was already settled national policy. Was Clarke also surprised that there was little discussion over why we have a standing armed forces? Clearly that needs to be justified and discussed to Clarke's satisfaction?
Clarke wrote that the day after Sept. 11, 2001, the president pulled him and a small group of aides into the Situation Room, closed the door and said, "Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this." Clarke said he replied, "But Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
Read this closely because THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE REAL SCANDAL.
On September 12th, 2001, Richard Clarke, assistant counterterrorism national security whatever, told our President "Al Qaeda did this" and that it needed no further investigation. When the President ordered him to look into possible Iraq fingerprints, he protested!
Where the hell does he get off??
3000 people were murdered the day before and he's ready to STOP INVESTIGATING and just say "Al Qaeda did this"??? The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get. This is the kind of guy we had in charge of fighting terrorism? An attack occurs, he places it neatly into his mental "Al Qaeda" category, and closes the door on further inquiry? Incompetent, negligent, simple-minded, bumbling, obstinate, insubordinate bureaucratic boob. These are some of the words that come to mind.
Think back to what you were doing, and thinking, on September 12, 2001? We didn't know exactly who did it, we didn't know if the number of dead was less than or more than 20,000, theories were flying around. But Richard Clarke was saying "AL QAEDA, CASE CLOSED, NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION PLEASE". If at that time I'd have known there was a guy in government saying flippantly to the President "we know Al Qaeda was behind this and nobody else so there's no need to investigate anything" I'd have had the inclination to go on over to Washington and kick that man's ass.
"I know, I know," Mr. Bush is quoted. "But see if Saddam is involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."
This is precisely what I would have wanted from a President on September 12, 2001. Why the hell is this all considered a scandal on Bush and not on Clarke?
The great concern in the White House is that the Saddam fixation to the neglect of the terrorist threat
The evidence that the terrorist threat has been "neglected" being __________...?
Man, I'm still ticked about these Clarke revelations.
Ticked at Clarke.
Essentially, the man's gleefully telling the country that he's a shamefully incompetent boob incapable of thinking outside the tiny box he had lovingly crafted for himself. "Al Qaeda did this, why investigate anything"???? My. God.