Okay, here's my attempt at being objective on this issue.
First, I do not disagree with the assertion that Bush has been gunning for Iraq since his inauguration. Frankly, I don't have a problem with the U.S. going into foreign countries to remove despots who kill MILLIONS. (And neither do many of YOU. Remember our discussion about the Congo? We blasted our government for NOT doing something then.) As I see it though, there's no way the majority of citizens in this country approve of that much military action just to remove a dictator. So, to use the war against terror as the only reason to invade Iraq doesn't fly with me. If I find out that the Bush admin knew for a fact that the intel was false, and pushed the war, they lose my vote. So far all I've heard ranges from "we made mistakes" to "Bush is a lying Satan worshipper." (Credit WoW for that one.)
But, Iraq WAS involved in terror. We know for sure that Saddam funded Palestinian suicide bombers, promising large amounts of cash to the families of bombers who killed Israeli civilians. It's not beyond the realm of possibility to think that if he openly funded people who kill our allies, that he might decide to fund those who kill us. Is that deduction alone cause enough to invade his country? Probably not. But is the world better off without Saddam in power? YES. For one, Palestinian suicide bombers aren't getting 30 Gs for killing Israelis anymore.
Now for the Richard Clarke guy. He may well be telling the truth. His timing is impeccable, and his profits will undoubtedly be pretty nice; but that doesn't make him a liar. What I would like to know is this: If he knew the country was under such a severe threat from Al Qaida back in 2001, and that the President wasn't doing sh*t about it, why in the world didn't he blow the whistle then? Why didn't he go out to the roof-top of the tallest building in D.C. and tell the world what the President was deliberately ignoring? If he knew so much, why didn't we hear about it from him then? Why did he wait until he was passed over for the #2 job in the Homeland Security department? Ask yourselves this question. If Mr. Clarke had gotten the job in Homeland Security, do you think we'd be reading his book right now?
I think those are legitamate questions that deserve an answer, and until I hear Mr. Clarke answer them, I'm withholding judgement on whether or not what he says his completely true. Does that seem fair to all of you? Or am I just a blind, uneducated, bushbrainwashed conservative moron?
Wait, don't answer that.
