"a book and testimony from Richard Clarke that pounded on the premise that Bush did jack shit about terrorism compared to Clinton prior to 9/11. "

Ummm, you don't know what you are talking about Tom- my guess is the only thing you know about the book is what your right-wing sources have told you.

Clarke is very critical of the Clinton Admin in his book- and his main concern with Bush that he didn't have with clinton is that he thinks the war on terror has been completely de-railed by Iraq. In fact, thats his ultimate point- and if you had actually listened to his testimony before congress, you would actually know that.

And no, as he lays out:
While the same general heuristic was used in the fight against Al-Qaeda, less attention, less focus, less priority and less resources were applied in the Bush administration.

The Frists and Rushes and Oreily's of the world have that one thing correct- that the tactic was much the same- but if you actually listened to what Clarke is saying, nowhere does he deny that.

Its a red herring. The point is the resources. And there was less, provably, under Bush than clinton. And Clarke is right about that point.

Listen to the testimony, read the transcript, read the book. Don't sit here and be so obviously uninformed. Don't play the role of partisan pit-bull for your masters. Think for yourself!

Davin L.