The book (I have only skimmed it, I have been working 60hrs/week for the last 2 weeks) Takes more issue with the 'diversion' into Iraq than than is about what could have stopped 9/11.

The right-wing attack dogs have zoomed in on pushing this line that he "is saying we could have stopped 9/11". And they have exhibited quotes (Toms pick-of-the-day has been shown elsewhere) where he seems to contradict himself.

Clarkes main criticism of the pre-9/11 terrorism effort with the Bush administration was that terrorism had much less emphasis under Bush than it did under Clinton. Not that the tactics changed. Not that anything overtly stupid was done. Not that any particulay hypotherical should have been executed.

In this parsimonious claim he is right. The number of high level briefings specifically on terrorism, Al-Qaueda and etc were less under Bush. Funding WAS cut. Programs WERE canceled.

Clarkes main issue in the book was that 9/11 was used as a 'lets get Iraq!' mandate- which in his view was a diversion from the real fight on international secret-cell privately funded terrorism. And I think he is right.

The whole "Clarke says Bush could have stoped 9/11" is a bit of a right wing attack agenda that, for instnce, Tom Brosz has been shilling with aplomb. I think Clarkes entire point (and this is even a lose quote) is that "We'll never know if 9/11 could have been averted because the attention, the funds and the emphasis was not there". In that much, in my analysis of the facts involved, it seems he is not only right but very convincingly right.

Why that attack agenda [of the right] seems legitimate is that Clarke testified before the 911 commission, which is mandated to investigate the events leading up to 9/11/. So its easy to make it seem like Clarke is saying that 9/11 could have been averted by Bush, because he is critical of the Bush admin's in general response to international terrorism- and that was definitely apparant in his testimony and in his book.

So in the end, pay attention to what Clarke is saying, not what others are saying that clarke is saying.

As Tony or alcary points out- whats the point of paying attention to someone who is interpreting someone as saying statement "X" and then interpreting for you what statement X is really saying. and then criticising that. Listen to Clarke first. I'm sure he has an agenda, I'm sure he's an embittered passed over washington desk surfer. But he is also one of this nations top authorities on terrorism with more practical experience in it than almost anyone. He may have an agenda, but he might also be telling the truth. Its worth listening to.

Davin L.