DOESN'T THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION?

I think that the Bush administration will have an even harder time discrediting Richard Clarke than they did Paul O'Neill, particularly because Clarke seems like a hard-ass who wont buckle under their pressure.

But the two whistleblowers have made critiques of Bush's MO that are strangely similar in some respects.

Clarke's conversational experiences with Bush and Rummy -- who were both, according to his accounts, hell-bent on linking 9/11 to Iraq in the hours and days following the attacks -- seemed character-wise to be very in line with Rove's reminders to Bush to "stick to principle", as described by O'Neill.

The difference is that Clarke isn't going to fold like a deck of cards with Al-Qaeda leaders' crossed out faces on them. One reason is that he will be testifying, openly I might add, before the 9/11 commission this week. Also, they can't do the "he's crazy or bitter!" routine that they tried on O'Neill, and other conservatives tried on David Brock. But that hasn't stopped them from trying!

In an interview Sunday evening, Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, dismissed Mr. Clarke's charges as "politically motivated," "reckless" and "baseless."

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns about the direction of the war on terror, why did he stay on the team as long as he did, and why did he wait till the beginning of a presidential campaign to speak out?" Mr. Bartlett said. He said the book's timing showed that it was "more about politics than policy."

Those are a couple of stupid questions there, Bartlett.

Regarding the first one, wouldn't the answer be that he's, you know, a serious person who wanted the anti-terror effort to go well? He stayed on the team because he had grave concerns about the directions of the war on terror! Apparently Dan Bartlett has low expectations for administration staff.

The second question can be answered easily when you consider the 9/11 commission itself. Didn't the Bush administration try to keep them from getting an extension past July? The de facto reason for their efforts was to keep the commission from finishing its report too close to the election. (Cuz if anything, the Bushies don't want 9/11 to get into electoral politics, do they?) Therefore, by the standard essentially argued by the Bush administration, shouldn't Clarke have waited until the summer or early autumn to release his book in order for them to make such a charge? They can't have it both ways.

Anyway, consider this week TFM's spring break (which it actually is, by the way), so posting will be occasional at best, at least through friday. Have a great week everybody!

UPDATE: Ouch! Via Atrios, on today's Newshour, Clark noted that the book was delayed 3 months by the White House before it was published. So does that make Bartlett's second piece of spin non-operational?