The Bush desperation

There is something to be said for not engaging in hyperbole. For instance, it is a mistake to say that the Bushies ignored terrorism because they can refute that charge very easily by showing that they did give it some attention. However, if you stick to just saying that it was not an "urgent" priority (the word Clarke used in his testimony yesterday) then you will be much closer to the truth.

The thing about this is that the Bushies want people to believe that they gave more attention to terrorism, pre-9/11, then the Clintonites did because they are insecure when it comes to being compared to Clinton. They have pretty much failed in all other comparisons with their predecessors. Their handling of terrorism is the last refuge they have in asserting that they are better than Clinton (as far as policy is concerned, personal comparisons are irrelevent to this discussion). Thus they must refute any suggestion that they did no better than Clinton with respect to terrorism.

It's the cornerstone of their entire legitimacy. Take that away from them and they have nothing.