Agreed with you on that point.
He's also still willing to support President Bush for re-election.
I think this is due to the fact that the administration has NOT been willing to go into the details of Saddam's al-Qaeda conenctions - say what you will about Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard's article, "Case Closed" has a very detailed picture of those connections.
Tack on th einteresting factoid the Guardian had on the training at Salman Pak, and I think there is enough reason to not only believe that Saddam and al-Qaeda cooperated, but that some of that cooperation involved 9/11.
The decision to focus on WMD was a mistake, albeit one that was very understandable. Tom Clancy's not the type to make such a call lightly, and I'm sure he has his reasons.
Here's the deal, hchutch. If I have to choose, I am going with the guy who is in the arena and has stood up for this nation for the last three years, rather than someone who has made a ton of money writing books after getting lucky on his first one. As far as I know, Clancy was an insurance salesman and I don't believe ever served.
I choose to stand with the President. And Clancy, and Zinni, and all the rest of the carpers who have done NOTHING to help, can all go pound sand.