John Moltz

Clarity of purpose

And that purpose was... get Saddam.

Missed Chances in a Long Hunt for bin Laden

He also reported frustration that some policy makers in the new administration "who had not lived through such threat surges before, questioned the validity of the intelligence or wondered if it was disinformation, though they were persuaded when they probed it."

Intelligence that pointed to Al Qaeda threats was questioned. Intelligence that pointed to Iraqi threats was exaggerated.

To be sure, the Clinton administration seems to have been unable to settle on a clearly defined policy on how to get bin Laden according to the Times account, but it did take the threat seriously and did make numerous efforts.

Instead of action and new initiatives, the Bush administration engaged in a lengthy policy debate.

...

Some intelligence officials expressed frustration over what they viewed as the Bush administration's slow pace and its apparent unwillingness to grasp what they viewed as the extreme gravity of the threat. Two C.I.A. counterterrorism officers, who were not identified, told the commission that they were "so worried about an impending disaster" that they considered resigning in protest, a report said.

And when 9/11 happened, Saddam was always thrown into the mix. Clarke has indicated Bush personally asked him to investigate Saddam's involvement in 9/11. Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq because there were "no good targets" in Afghanistan.

The Times does not make this connection and, indeed, does not even mention Iraq in the story.

The Clinton administration may not have been perfect on Al Qaeda, but they didn't take their eye off the ball.