There is now clear evidence that Bush invaded Iraq instead of going after terrorists, heedlessly reducing our security, and that of the world.
The latest evidence comes from Richard Clarke, who worked against terrorism under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, was President Clinton's terrorism czar, and was head of counter-terrorism under this President Bush.
Here's what he said on CBS's 60 Minutes last night:
"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection." [Did Bush Press For Iraq-9/11 Link? 03/21/2004]
President Bush got into the act himself:
"[President Bush] came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
"We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.' [Ibid.]
Clarke had tried to get the attention of the President on the mounting terrorist threat, but had no luck until it was too late:
Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject.