i got a chance to listen to richard clarke speak this evening, and after hearing him speak i’m stunned that the right-wing have been trying to villify him.
and hearing him speak also lends so much more force and gravity to his charges that the bush administration didn’t care about counter-terrorism before 9-11 and that the war in iraq has been a serious drain on resources that could’ve actually gone to fight terrorism.
his first point was over the phrase ‘imminent threat’.
mr. clarke made a very good point, which was that iraq had weapons of mass destruction for over 20 years and never used them against the united states.
so why did iraq pose an ‘imminent threat'(rumsfeld’s words)when in 22 years they had never used weapons of mass destruction against the u.s(even when we were at war with them)and when the weapons inspectors couldn’t even find any wmd’s?
richard clarke knows more about counter-terrorism than just about anyone else alive. he’s served 4 presidents(3 of them republicans), so when he says that the war in iraq was waged for spurious and erroneous reasons and that the bush administration have dealt with terrorism either ineptly or not at all, well, his words carry great weight because he’s speaking from great non-partisan experience and intelligence.
moby
