SWING-AND-A-MISS!

Number of times Clinton's last national security policy paper mentions "Osama bin Laden and his terror network": Four more than Condi Rice was going to in her national security address scheduled for 9/11/01. Give it a rest, guys.

UPDATE: Haha, I should have read further down the article:

Mr. Bush often notes that about two-thirds of al Qaeda's thousands of members — including many key leaders — have been either captured or killed since the attacks, and that 44 of the 55 top Iraqi officials under Saddam Hussein in a deck of cards have been "taken care of."

You don't need to have read Mr Clarke's book to know what's wrong with this. (Hint: think "hydra", and think "Iraq gave Bin Laden the greatest recruiting tool he could have ever hoped for, and so on)

And at the end of the article,

The Bush administration official noted that the planning of the September 11 attacks happened while Mr. Clinton was in power, and said the commission's probe has turned into a search for blame.

"It's a shame we are not focused more on moving forward, instead of about who was concerned more," he said.

The official said he found the lack of bin Laden and al Qaeda references in the final Clinton terror assessment interesting, but downplayed such "word-counting games."

"We don't measure progress or response [to terrorism] by how many speeches, words, utterances or meetings were held on a particular issue, but by action taken," he said.

Gee, I wonder why they'd downplay something like that. (hint: think "four is greater than zero", and so on)

UPDATE: On today's Crossfire, Novakula trotted out this very story, only to get smacked down handily by Carville, who more or less made the same point I did. Is it me, or has Bob Novak been a receptacle for the most ineffective, desperate pieces of spin that have come out against Richard Clarke? Maybe I should have expected that.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum reads the full report and blasts the WashTimes' charge to smithereens:

If you're looking for the four references, note that OBL's name is spelled "Usama bin Ladin." Sure enough, he's mentioned four times.

On the other hand, "terrorism" is mentioned seven times in the introduction alone and 58 times in the main section on "Implementing the Strategy." What's more, in the major section titled "Protecting the Homeland" there are seven primary issues discussed. Two of them are "Combating Terrorism" and "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction."

It's also worth noting that far from considering terrorism a mere law enforcement activity, terrorism gets an entire paragraph in the section titled "Military Activities":

We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.

That's a big *oops* for the Moonies.

FINAL UPDATE: The Moonie Times piece was linked on Drudge late last night, but it's completely gone now. Well, that was fast!