Iraq was on the list of terrorist sponsers (like many of our current "allies"). But hadn't attacked us as Clark said and was not behind 9/11. The point Clark was trying to make is that Bush and his administration wanted war with Iraq after 9/11 with no proof of any connection to 9/11 (that they admit now) but wanted Clark to establish a link or at least a link to AQ. He said- categorically that no operational relationship between Iraq and AQ existed and that the President was told this by him, CIA, elements in the DOD, and the FBI and yet ignored it and relied on more dubious unvetted intel by his own political appointees.
Iraq was on the list of terrorist sponsors (like many of our current "allies").
What current allies are you talking about? Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were not on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, if that is what you mean.
Of course they are partisan against Bush! It doesn't mean they are all liars.
I never called Clarke a liar. He just hasn't provided us with the full story. He was the counter-terrorism czar after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in East Africa. Obvioiusly, his strategy and world view did not prevail in the war against al-Qaeda. Clarke should take some responsibility for his role in the process, which predated Bush.
The point Clark was trying to make is that Bush and his administration wanted war with Iraq after 9/11 with no proof of any connection to 9/11 (that they admit now) but wanted Clark to establish a link or at least a link to AQ. He said- categorically that no operational relationship between Iraq and AQ existed and that the President was told this by him, CIA, elements in the DOD, and the FBI and yet ignored it and relied on more dubious unvetted intel by his own political appointees.
The point I am trying to make is that our invasion of Iraq was an integral part of the war on terrorism. After 9/11, Bush presented his doctrine that the US would go after terrorists with global reach and the states that harbor them.
Saddam was a prime candidate for the Bush doctrine. It was not necessary for us to establish a positive connection between AQ and Iraq to take action, especially in view of Saddam's past history. Saddam had the resources, i.e. Oil for Food billions, and a record of supporting terrorists, including providing money to Palestinian suicide bombers.
Saddam also had unaccounted for stocks of WMD and used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. He could give them to AQ or other terrorists. After all, Saddam did try to assassinate Bush 41. Moreover, the US was committing significant resources for over a decade enforcing the no-fly zones. This was not a tenable situation, which could be maintained indefinitely especially when we were also fighting a war in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
I find it surprising that Clarke or anyone else can say uncategorically that Saddam had no connection to AQ. What is he basing that conclusion on, the same intelligence that proved faulty about WMD? The liberation of Iraq and the removal of a tyrant who invaded two of his neighbors and killed more than 400,000 of his citizens and buried them in mass graves are good things. We have taken a bold foreign policy initiative, which can bring freedom and democracy to a region of the world that sorely needs it. Let a bureaucrat like Clarke rant all he wants. Bush did the right thing.