Given the complexity of issues, the political gamesmanship and the White House’s fierce attack on his credibility, it can be difficult to zero in on the essentials of Richard Clarke’s testimony.
Here it is:
"The reason that I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is that by invading Iraq - something I was not asked by the commission - but by invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."
Clarke said that yesterday.
He said a lot more about the Administration’s mindset when it came to power (interested in old issues, uninterested in alQaeda) and its expressed desire to go after Iraq from the outset.
(Note that Paul O’Neill, the Bush Administration’s first Secretary of the Treasury, said the same in the recent book by Ron Suskind, "The Price of Loyalty.")
But the key point is that Clarke - professional counter-terrorism guy and Republican - says Iraq weakened the war on the terrorists guilty of 9/11.
This is obviously true. It is also why the White House is doing what it can to destroy Clarke.
Will Americans understand this? It’s too early to tell.
.