i've been so busy today. i don't know where this came from; the 1300 deadlines i had in the past few weeks were DONE. i was supposed to have BLOG TIME TODAY, thank you very much. oh well.

i guess i'll briefly address the whole clarke thing. i don't have anything incredibly insightful to say, or really, anything that hasn't been said already all over the blogosphere (moo ha ha. just used it cause tommy hates that word). but i'm just interested in the fact that i have not yet seen one single rational defense of the bush administration, from either officials or bloggers. all i'm hearing is "well CLINTON didn't do anything, either" or "this man was a CLINTON official and obviously partisan" (except he's a republican and served reagan and bush I) or "this man is fucking CRAZY and only wants to promote his book" (probably a little bit true) or "I LOVE BUSH SHUT UP SHUT SHUP I CAN'T HEAR YOULALALALALALALA."

honestly, i'm pretty convinced of his credibility. he's served the government for thirty years, under seven presidents, five of them republicans. he's been described all over the place as a hawkish administration hardliner. true, he might have been a little insane on the cyber-terror front, but it looks like overall he was paranoid about all sorts of terror risks, especially al-qaeda. so unless you show me concrete reasons why he's not credible, besides having also served under clinton (oh dear god, not that!), then i'm not buying it.

anyway, the right are just attacking his credibility because i guess that's all they've got at the moment. can anyone point me towards a reasonable, thought-out argument against clarke's assertions?