Scott's a spokesperson who was told to concentrate his responses on certain terms and avoid other aspects when responding to questions about the war. Which directly supports my argument. And of course Clarke is just a person with an axe to grind to you, because he doesn't agree with your assessment.
As to Colin Powell, yes he supports the use of military force. That does not address, however, the administration's selling of the war to the public, or its handling of the war. His chief of staff at the time of his infamous UN speech wrote a book titled "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown", and referring to Powell's speech at the UN, says "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."
David Kay, the CIA's chief weapon's inspector in Iraq after Saddam fell, says "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator." (read
CNN.com - Former aide:�Powell�WMD speech�'lowest point in my life' - Aug 19, 2005 for more)
And Powell, when asked about his infamous speech to the UN, said "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." And asked if that speech would tarnish his reputation, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." (from
ABC News: Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief)
So while yes, he does ultimately support the war, it's not as if he's perfectly fine with the drum-up to the war as well.