I think that by far the most damaging accusations are that the Iraq war undermined the war on terror. That is, I think, the real long term danger to Bush and his cabinet. And I am not just talking about
I agree with that. But the more damaging material, at least at the moment, is the pre 9-11 period because there is a paper trail that contradicts the claims of the Bush administration. I'm convinced that paper trail is the reason the Bush folk don't wish to let Rice testify publicly, under oath.
As far as long term damage to US security, perhaps world security, I completely agree. Clarke's discussion of the problems created by the Iraq invasion makes sense. I'm going to use it as a baseboard for my thinking about it for a while. At least until it seems not credible.
The part of his argument about creating more Al Q types seems incontrovertible; the part about diversion of resources from Afghan/Al Q work, also seems incontrovertible. He makes the point that some unit whose specialty is looking for bin Laden types was diverted out of Afghan to Iraq to look, successfully, for Saddam. That unit, according to Clarke, is back in Afghanistan.
The third point is powerful but waits for future confirmation. And that's the "Al Q morphed" during this period in which attention was diverted away to Iraq. And is now a "hydra headed" monster. Clearly, some of that is true. Just how much we won't know for some time. |
