Once you form a worldview and make basic political distinctions between "good" and what is "evil", "right" and "wrong", the mind tends to instinctively downplay or filter out information that contradicts your initial decision. For reference, here is a black-and-white summary of my current views regarding poli-sci:

Brilliant. Loopy.

Good. Bad.

Admirable. Deplorable.

As a result, that's why it's puzzling and difficult to read and absorb something like this:

President Bush’s former top terrorism advisor says the president isn’t doing the best job fighting terrorism. The former advisor, Richard Clarke, discusses this and other observations he made while he was a White House insider in an interview with Lesley Stahl to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

It's unusual that such a senior figure would make such dramatic criticism. But let's read on:

“Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism,” says Clarke in tomorrow night’s interview. “He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We’ll never know,” he tells Stahl.

At this point, I become skeptical. Anyone who makes a shadow of a claim that President Bush had some likely ability to prevent September 11th raises my suspicions. Let's face it; terrorism wasn't high enough on anyone's agenda prior to September 11th. To suggest that Bush had some unique potential to cut through the mounds of raw intelligence and prevent this surprising attack just doesn't ring true. Could more have been done? Probably. Was there beaurocratic inaction? I'm sure of it. But without the watershed event of those buildings coming down, no administration (not even Clinton's) deserves blame for failing to anticipate and prevent such a stunning event. Moving on ...

Clarke tells Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation.

This is well-documented in Woodward's book, Bush at War. Almost immediately after September 11th, Paul Wolfowitz brought his long-term strategy of Middle-East engagement to the table. Realizing that the war on terror needed to be viewed as a strategic effort (of which military force and the installation of a Democracy were key components) in place of a tactical rataliatory event, Iraq was immediately identified as a terrorist state that was very high on the list of priorities. As Bush famously said, "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." Iraq was most definitely with the terrorists.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.

Once again, repeating the mantra that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda is a simplistic interpretation of the motivation for war and a two-dimensional approach to a three-dimensional problem - the potential nexus of 21st Century rogue states with the capacity to develop and deploy WMD and fanatic Islamism. The people who use the train of logic that discounted a threat from Iraq view the war on terror in a fundamentally more narrow way than many of those who supported invasion. Of course the Afghani-based terrorists needed to be taken out, along with their hosts, but the realization of our terrible vulnerability renders intolerable the existence of any outlaw regime that has a history of terrorism, WMD development and continuing, overt hostility towards the United States.

Did Rumsfeld make the comment that Iraq needed to be taken out merely by virtue of more appealing targeting? I wouldn't be completely surprised. But he didn't get his way. Also notice how Clarke says "we all said," which indicates that he was not a lone voice in the wilderness. The President took opinions from his cabinet and advisors, analayzed the situation, made the correct decision to move in Afghanistan, and then prioritized dealing with Iraq only after Al Quaeda had been engaged.

Richard Clarke may be trying to make some scratch by generating publicity for his book, he's likely pissed off at those that he disagrees with in the Bush Administration and I'm sure he is probably voicing his convictions. But - his analysis of how this administration is combatting terrorism seems laden with rhetorical and misleading criticism. Based on the quotes in this article, it's a superficial analysis. And it makes me glad he isn't advising the president any longer ...