"... originating as it does from the person most here seem to regard as being the fount of all knowledge and wisdom pertaining to international terrorism and the security of the United States of America."

i wouldn't say clarke is the fount of all knowledge and wisdom, etc. but i think you must acknowledge that his credentials and position at the top of the US anti-terrorism policy chain for several years and several administrations afford him a particularly unique viewpoint on the whole issue. that, and the fact that he WILLINGLY testifies under oath to all relevant commitees and commissions and answers questions in a forthright manner even occasionally using the words "yes" and "no", tremendously dangerous terms if you don't think you're telling the truth. because you can then face prosecution, unlike the stonewallers who prevaricate. to me this adds some weight to his allegations.

"...and they did have the comfort of knowing that the team looking after this issue remained intact apart from a
change of NSA."

and then, for some reason, didn't pay attention to them. according to clarke, out of 100 "principles" meetings chaired by rice before 9/11, one was devoted to terrorism. that's 99 that were not. this would suggest to me that some other agenda was in play and whatever chance there may have been to prevent 9/11 was lost. since you rely quite a bit on your military experience, teribus, in your explications. wouldn't you say that after a disaster of this magnitude it's kind of strange that not a single official in the chains of command has been fired, demoted, or resigned? does that seem like responsible leadership is in control?