If I understand Clarke, the idea is that Zarqawi is perfectly happy with democracy, so long as the United States is not involved. (I sure hope the Times isn't paying Clarke for this column.)
Good one. Read it.
Laugh or cry that Mr. Clarke is still being given a platform to spread his "truths," depending on your preference.
Update: Atilla updates:
On rereading my post, I realize I may have been unfair to Clarke in one sense: I made fun of him for the wrong thing. Contrary to what I said below, he doesn't appear to be saying that "Zarqawi is perfectly happy with democracy, so long as the United States is not involved." What he does appear to be saying is that Zarqawi would be opposed to democracy regardless of U.S. involvement, and if that is true, Clarke is being ridiculous in blaming Bush for Zarqawi's attacks on democracy, which (on Clarke's theory) would be occurring even if the Iraqis had established democratic institutions on their own.Which, of course, we all knew because Zaqawi told us he doesn't like democracy - too much freedom involved... Clarke is being ridiculous.