Richard Clarke (search) exposed a truth that many people are finding horrible — when America's vulnerability to terrorism was exposed, one of the first thoughts to cross President Bush's mind was Iraq.
If Iraq hadn't crossed Bush's mind first thing, he didn't deserve to be president.
Let's get real... two Iraqis were identified as bombers of the '93 World Trade Center. One was in prison and the other was hiding out in Baghdad.
Saddam Hussein (search) had been deeply humiliated by the '91 war and had tried to assassinate the first President Bush. Honestly... who wouldn't think he was still a threat to the U.S. and that he might have some connections to the renegade Saudi Usama bin Laden (search), the mastermind behind the Cole bombings and embassy bombings.
So we hear that Clarke spent eight years telling his boss President Clinton that there was no connection between bin Laden and Iraq, and that Clarke wanted Iraq off the table.
Bush didn't buy it, and thank God he didn't. Who says Clarke is so smart in these judgments? Clarke, that's who. The ultimate bureaucrat eliminated any voice that dared speak words he didn't want to hear.
Also... why do people think the president had to have solid proof on Iraq like fighting terror was the O.J. trial? That is upside-down thinking.
The president's standard of proof against a threat like Iraq should be lower not higher. When millions of American lives could be lost, the president should act on possibilities and probabilities — not an impossibly high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's My Word.
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at email@example.com. Some of your e-mails will be featured on the air or on our site.
• Looking for previous My Word columns?