More socially than militarily.

Kinda reminds me of us.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy

See the emphasis (and hesitation) on when it was decided ("First week in February", "in the Spring")?  He was trying to suggest they immediately decided to add to the Clinton-admin policies.

... decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

He's not saying they increased the budget dedicated to Al Qaeda - or even covert ops in general - by five-fold.  He's saying they "decided in principle" to increase CIA resources in general, then cites covert ops and Al Quaeda ops as examples of things the resources would (presumably) be used for.  This does not mean that CIA resources actually were increased five-fold between the Spring and 9-11.  He does not indicate during what period this "five-fold" increase would take place (1 year, 5 years, 10 years?), or how much (if any) was actually implemented prior to 9-11.  He does not indicate how much of it was used for anti-terrorism issues or Al Qaeda efforts, as opposed to the decision "in principle" to increase "CIA resources" in general.  So while I highly doubt he was "lying" in his testimony, his statements were broad and vague enough to make it sound like the Bush administration was increasing its efforts against Al Quaeda, without actually saying much of anything at all - other than a decision "in principle" to increase CIA resources in general.

Not to mention the fact that, if counter-terrorism efforts were such a high priority in the pre-9/11 Bush administration, why would they downgrade the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism?  Rather than the NCC's memos going directly to the President, they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.

OTOH - Clarke was pretty clear in his assessment of the Bush/Al Quaeda efforts when he was no longer Bush's Special Assistant:

Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit"...

Clarke made the statement: "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, ever."
Clarke had made clear in his book that this conclusion was understood by the intelligence community at the time of 9/11 and the ensuing months, but top Bush administration officials were pre-occupied with finding a link between Iraq and 9/11 in the months that followed the attack, and thus, Clarke argued, the Iraq war distracted attention and resources from the war in Afghanistan and hunt for Osama bin Laden