Exactly. I don't agree with the "Clarke is lying" rhetoric many Pubbies are adopting. It gives him too much credit. His case against Dubya is pure spin, and we should be portraying it that way. E.g. Clarke claims that the Bush administration "did nothing" about terrorism before 9-11, but by his own admissions, in sworn testimony, this "doing nothing" was carrying forward the Clinton policy toward al-Qaeda, while considering and adopting a much more aggressive policy over a space of eight months. The resulting policy was similar -- excepting more ambitious and comprehensive -- to the suggestions Clarke had submitted to the Clinton administration in '98, and which it had not acted on in two years.
IOW Clarke's bitch is that Bush did nothing, and didn't do it fast enough!
Look up the definition of "lie" in the dictionary. M-W has "2. to create a false or misleading impression". That was his intent. In fact, the example given at m-w.com is perfectly appropriate: "lied his way out of trouble".