From a reader:

Sir,
One thing I haven’t heard in the media is this: If what Clarke is saying is true, then the liberals, by all logic, are upset that Bush didn’t overturn the existing Clinton doctrine early enough.
It is generally accepted that incoming administrations universally carry forth existing national policies until they come up with their own. When the Bush tax cuts went through, even the biased main stream media said that now it was Bush’s economy, not Clinton’s. Well, it seems to me that until such a time that Team Bush could create a different terrorism policy, the existing Clinton policy was in effect.
So, the Clintonistas are saying that Bush didn’t change the existing Clinton Doctrine (Essentially doing nothing) fast enough.
Am I off base? Your thoughts?

My thoughts I’ve heard this point made by a few people (Bill Kristol, Lowry, the voices in my head). And, I think it’s largely right. Stripping out the rhetoric and cheap shots, Clarke is saying Bush wan’t tough enough. Considering the bleating from the far left (though generally not from more moderate liberals) about the “overkill” of the American war in Afghanistan it’s certainly impossible to take some of Clarke’s new fans seriously. Moreover, the political question is , Iraq notwithstanding, who would be tougher on terrorism: John Kerry (or Al Gore) or George Bush? Given the Democratic Party’s problems with the Patriot Act, it’s obsession with multilateralism, it’s peace-at-all-costs fringe and all the rest I think the answer is pretty obvious. The Bush-is-always-wrong left is so excited by the political damage being done to Bush it’s missing the point that the criticism is coming from Bush’s “Right” in a sense. If the end result of Clarke’s shtick is to foster a debate over who’s tougher on terrorism, it seems to me, Clarke might help Bush.