But let's be honest. That's the whole point of Richard Clarke's book and current testimony. It's a Hail Mary effort to destroy the president by encouraging the American people to believe that Mr. Bush was indifferent or worse to terrorism prior to 9-11 and incompetent or worse in dealing with it afterward. You see, because our intelligence services and military can't walk and chew gum at the same time, Bush was wrong to divert their attention from al Qaeda to Iraq -- even after we'd destroyed the Taliban and the al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.
With the help of the hapless Mr. Clarke, John Kerry and his buddies at "60 Minutes" and the rest of the partisan media have tried to create a presumption that President Bush has acted recklessly and in furtherance of a personal agenda in the war on terror.
This presumption furnishes the basis for their demand that Bush apologize to the 9-11 victims' families and that Condoleezza Rice ignore the separation of powers and testify under oath before the commission.
But folks, neither Ms. Rice nor President Bush have anything to prove. It is the Democrats who are desperate to divert attention from their dangerously myopic approach toward evil generally and terrorism specifically.
Just as they insist that we accord enemy combatants due process as if terrorism were a law enforcement matter, they demand strict proof that Saddam was directly involved in the 9-11 planning. It's not enough that he was a rogue enabler of terrorists throughout the world and continually violated U.N. resolutions.
The Democrats have presidential military leadership envy. They just can't stand that President Bush has so masterfully taken the war to the terrorists. How they wish they could revise history to show they are tougher and wiser.
But, alas, we have them on the record every step of the way, and it's just not going to fly. They must live by (their refusal to use) the sword (against terrorism) and die by it.