I actually find much of Clarke’s criticism of pre-9/11 Bush completely plausible, if rather obvious. (Some of it is self-serving garbage).

What I find kind completely implausible is his picture of Clinton as a staunch anti-terrorist warrior whose “top priority” was fighting al Qaeda. That is laughable on its face and doesn’t stand up to even minimal scrutiny. I also think that Clinton probably saw Iraq as a higher priority than terrorism as I he left office – having made it, since 1998, the policy of the U.S. government to seek regime change in that country. Which is understandable.

And this is interesting:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040406-121654-1495r.htm

Clarke’s dabbling in revisionist history and self-promotion have damaged what might otherwise have been constructive analysis of the roots of the 9/11 attacks.

"...dabbling in revisionist history and self-promotion..."

You have to at least keep up if you're going to take on the Bushies!