blowero what this statement say is that Clarke’s book says (or implies) that the agents were on heightened alert by his directive (and therefore he is responsible for foiling Millenium), which according to them is not true.
rjung, I have better things to do than search for items to discredit Clarke. He does a good enough job of it on his own.
How fortunate for you, friend Flickster. In that case, you will have no difficulty coming up with more substantial instances of Clarke’s mendacity. There is no reason for you to go so easy on him, we are all grown-ups here, you can go ahead and release the full force of your prosecution.
In this instance, Mr. Clarke seems to have indulged himself in some post hoc wishful thinking, he seems to have assumed that the happy result of the terrorist’s interception was directly related to this warning. This, it appears, may not be the case, and Mr. Clarke may be guilty of blowing his own horn. I doubt anyone who saw any of Mr. Clarke’s various testimonies imagine that he is unassertive and shy. I am not shocked.
Perhaps you are just warming up?
I don’t see that in what is quoted. I see:
a) that a warning was sent to law-enforcement agencies (not that it was acted upon); and
b) that Ressam was caught during (in Clarke’s own words) a “routine screening,” i.e., one that would have happened with or without the warning.
I don’t see any connection between the two, stated or implied. There may be one in the book, but it isn’t in the article. Feel free to quote the book if you think it does make such a claim.
Fixed that for ya. 
rjung, if you are going to quote my words, then quote them intact.
[Moderator Hat ON]
rjung, you KNOW you can’t misquote people, even jokingly. Don’t do it.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I thought it was rather obvious that thouse weren’t his original words, but okay.
(Would make things easier if there was a “strikethrough” formatting option, though)
Is that a new rule?
Because I’ve seen people do that numerous times on these boards but this is the first time I’ve seen someone be admonished for it.
No need to give in entirely. A few relevant proverbs:
“Chance favors the prepared mind.”
“Luck is the residue of design.”
“The harder you work, the luckier you get.”
To whatever extent that Clarke helped make the people on the ground aware of the possibilities, he’s entitled to take a bit of credit for it. Hell, even massive police investigations of ordinary crimes usually seem to turn on what might seem in isolation to be lucky breaks, but those bits of luck are prepared for by the intensity of the work.
And, when the mind is unprepared, chance does not favor it.
Nope. From the ATMB sticky FAQ - guidelines for posting at the SDMB