Let's review, these are the same folks that called Clinton's accusers "Trailer Park Trash," and spent 2 years telling America that Ken Star was only investigating Clinton because he did not "get enough" from his wife and NOW THEY want to talk about character assassination?

hmmmm- Pointing out that one guys story keeps changing verses calling someone a sex crazed pervert.

OH I see their point. Imbecilic Hypocrites.

"To ask if he knows what he is talking about when he speaks, however, is fair game."

Questioning the factual evidence is fine. Let's get it all out in the open - declassify everything. Put the money on the bar and roll them dice.

But asserting:

1) Clarke is doing this only for the money
2) Clarke is a "trees not the forest" guy
3) Clarke is a bumbling bureaucrat
4) Clarke is a disgruntled civil servant

IS character assassination - definition. None of these speak to the credibility of his statements other than to show his character can't back them up so you shouldn't listen to what he says.

BTW Paul, watch Clarke and listen to him - don't just read him. You're assertions that he keeps changing his story are losing credibility by the hour. Check with headquarters for the new lines 06:00 GMT. Clarke is going to be a very hard man to smear. But I have faith that you'll eventually manage to stumble on an effective line of attack.

Just don't pop a vein trying, okay?

Steven, I can't believe you linked to a plant from Crescent Investment Management LLC. Particularly delicious to see one from his nibs, Mansoor Ijaz.

So Hal... You'll of course blast the Clinton team for their behavior right?

Certainly saying someone is driven by a lack of a decent sex life is closer to character assassination that say mentioning that Clarke will make a million bucks off this book or that fact that he had a reputation of being an odd duck long before Bush came to office. Right?

I know you just want to be honest and fair, Right?

Paul

I have to agree with Hal on this one. Steven, you ably argue that the Bush administration has every right to question the veracity of Clarke, as he is in a sense a "witness" for the prosecution in the "trial" of the Bush administration's handling of Al Qaeda pre-9/11. But as Hal notes, this is tantamount to questioning Clarke's character, and so it's fair to say the particularly agressive tactics we're seeing amount to "character assassination." To date, I think The Economist has the most reasonable assessment of the Clarke episode:

The Bush administration was urged to do more before 9/11, and chose not to, for reasons that seemed right and reasonable at the time. It was working on a strategy to deal with al-Qaeda, but too slowly to do any good. Some of its members were more concerned about Saddam Hussein than Osama bin Laden. Nothing here can be called indefensible. Whether this is the record of someone who treated al-Qaeda with the utmost seriousness is another matter.

Hey Gary- you gonna bash Clinton for his antics too or are you in the Imbecilic Hypocrite crowd?

Hmmm...Noting that Clarke stands to make a lot of money from his book, or that he may be a disgruntled ex-employee say nothing about his character. They simply speak for the possible motivations Clarke may have in coming forward at this date and time.

If he wanted his allegations to be taken seriously, why didn't he come forward earlier? It has been 2.5 years since the attacks. If this administration was culpable in any sense, why not come forward earlier? Could it be to make money? Could it be to maximize the potential political damage to his ex-boss, in an election year?

These are fair questions, since they speak not to his character, but his motives.