I haven't had the chance to review Richard Clarke's book yet, of course. But here are just a few impressions from the coverage this fiasco is receiving.
The White House is absolutely, positively scared--that much is certain. They're not trying to refute facts; they're going into full-tilt ad hominem attack mode against Clarke, trying to discredit him. Tried and true right-wing, of course.
The only problem is, it doesn't wash. First of all, Clark is a registered Republican; by all accounts, he's also a hard-liner who served under Reagan, Clinton and Bush II. He's not "partisan".
Second, if he were just doing this to make money off of his book, as the White House suggests, why wouldn't he have written a glowing report of the President? He could have easily done so; it would have been touted far and wide by right wing media, and he would have made a mint. But he didn't.
Third, as Atrios notes, the White House clearance process took three months; if that hadn't been the case, the book would have been released well before the campaign had gotten under wa.
Fourth, the White House is providing very little in the way of factual details actually refuting what Clarke said. Just the ad hominem stuff, as noted above.
Fifth, the person the White House is using to refute Clarke (Dr. Rice) has a history of making provably false statements to the media, on issues such as uranium from Niger and pre-9/11 warnings. This isn't a solid foundation on which to base a character attack.
Sixth, and finally, Clarke's allegations aren't the first. Randy Beers and Paul O'Neill, both long-time public servants and/or Bush partisans, have said largely the same thing. Furthermore, we now have a whole list of others who corroborate Clarke's story.
The media is having a hard time sorting through all the bull the White House is dishing out. Some of it is provably false, and let's hope it doesn't win the debate on this matter.