Watching Richard Clarke give evidence at the 9/11 hearing was pure political entertainment. To me, the sight of Clarke attacking the President, his former boss, in an election year was enjoyable enough; that Clarke had been one of George W. Bush's top counter-terrorism experts, and a Reagan appointee who had successfully worked with Bush senior, made the experience comparable to Boris Johnson's attempt to present Have I Got News For You.

But, as the 9/11 hearing continued, I noticed a contradiction in my position. Clarke accused Bush of not being sufficiently zealous when hunting down terrorists. I was worried when Bush went into Afghanistan and furious when he invaded Iraq. Yet here I was, cheering on a man that believed Bush should have gone into Afghanistan sooner to prevent the 11 September attacks. And, despite the fact I had spent the last year petrified by the potential consequences of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, I was quite prepared to agree with him.
  read »