I highly recommend the entire thing be read, here. (You'll have to be registered - it's worth the two minutes)

Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan complain, for example, that Clarke is criticizing the administration that he defended to reporters in mid-2002.

It's a silly charge. Clarke is now voicing his personal opinions. In 2002 he was obviously speaking on behalf of the administration, and everyone expected him to put the best face possible on the administration's policies.

Rice would have been the first to object if Clarke, while still at the White House, had complained to journalists about the administration's policies and, more specifically, her lack of focus on al-Qaida.

Does the national security adviser seriously expect the public to believe that Clarke was free two years ago to voice personal doubts about the administration in which he was serving?

Even more petty, the White House released and mocked Clarke's resignation letter, which included some compliments to the president. This brought a withering reply from Clarke: “A polite resignation. How shocking and terrible.”

Clarke suffered considerable frustration in the Bush administration, and he's got a book to sell. So his criticisms of the administration must be weighed carefully against other available evidence.

But the administration's attacks on Clarke bring to mind a similar effort only weeks ago to besmirch Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary, after O'Neill went public with his concerns about the president's fiscal priorities.

Unfortunately, the Bush White House seems more comfortable launching personal attacks on its critics than answering their criticisms.

Well, whaddya know... looks like top government officials do lurk in the Habitable Zone.