New book by Richard Clarke exposes inner

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2003
New book by Richard Clarke exposes inner
73
Fri, 03-19-2004 - 9:46pm
workings of Bush administration after 9/11.

In his book The Right Man, David Frum, a former speechwriter in the Bush White House, tells about a meeting in February 2001 at which the president spoke about "his determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq." In Bush at War, Bob Woodward describes a White House meeting on September 12, 2001, at which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "raised the question of Iraq. Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just Al Qaeda?" Woodward writes, "Before the attacks, the Pentagon had been working for months on developing a military option for Iraq."

Now comes a new book, "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism advisor, about how the Bush administration was obsessed by Iraq from the start. Wonder how long it will take the Bush propaganda machine to try to convince us that Clarke is an embittered disgruntled crazy old man who never should have held the position he did like they did Sam O'neill.

From Drudge:

"FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME

Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET

Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.

The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "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 ,'" he tells Stahl.

Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "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,'" says Clarke.

Clarke, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book, "Against All Enemies."

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash60.htm

A quote from an Associated Press article dated March 19. 2004:

"Ex-adviser: Iraq considered after 9/11

By TED BRIDIS

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration considered bombing Iraq in retaliation almost immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks against New York and Washington, according to a new first-person account by a former senior counterterrorism adviser inside the White House.

Richard Clarke, the president's counterterrorism coordinator at the time of the attacks, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld complained on Sept. 12 - after the administration was convinced with certainty that al-Qaida was to blame - that, "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."

A spokesman for Rumsfeld said he couldn't comment immediately.

Clarke makes the assertion in a new book, "Against All Enemies," which goes on sale Monday morning. He told CBS News he believes the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of long-standing interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein; Clarke was scheduled to appear Sunday night on the network's "60 Minutes" news program.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and the al-Qaida attacks in the United States, Clarke said in an interview segment CBS broadcast Friday evening. "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida."



Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 03-20-2004 - 9:10am
Thanks for the post, I will be sure to watch 60 Minutes. Clarke is telling what many have known for some time, but had no proof. I sure he will get slammed, this administration always degrades the messenger. I suppose the preponderance of the evidennce will eventually mount as all the secrets get out.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 03-21-2004 - 9:04am

Clarke will be next inline to be attacked by the Bush admin.


One has to wonder why they hired people that had such 'vivid imaginations', & why

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 03-21-2004 - 3:47pm
I thought that Bush, the son, wanted to get Saddam out of power because Saddam had put out a hit on Bush, the father. Saddam was so incensed by Bush senior's war on Iraq that probably as soon as Bush junior was in power.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 03-21-2004 - 9:17pm
I don't know. But the fact that they are trying to say that he is lying because his friend works for Kerry is insane! Clarke said he worked for 3 Republicans (Reagan,Bush Sr, and GWB) and one democrat (Clinton). I was absolutely stunned as I watched the show. I don't know why I should be surprised but I honestly was. I absolutely believe him though. Oh and did you see the part where the Bush admin talking head tried to deny that Clarke ever had a conversation with Bush about Iraq being linked to Al Quaida? Then the reporter told him that she had two independent sources that backed up Clarke he backed down. It is absolutely unbelievable.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 03-22-2004 - 7:33am

I don't know. But the fact that they are trying to say that he is lying because his friend works for Kerry is insane! Clarke said he worked for 3 Republicans (Reagan,Bush Sr, and GWB) and one democrat (Clinton). I was absolutely stunned as I watched the show. I don't know why I should be surprised but I honestly was. I absolutely believe him though. Oh and did you see the part where the Bush admin talking head tried to deny that Clarke ever had a conversation with Bush about Iraq being linked to Al Quaida? Then the reporter told him that she had two independent sources that backed up Clarke he backed down. It is absolutely unbelievable.

Yeah, I think it is almost unbelievable in today's world that a reporter would stand up to the Bush administration, they are all so whipped I didn't think there was a single one capable of doing it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2003
Mon, 03-22-2004 - 8:57am
I'm inclined to believe Clarke because of the Bob Woodward book and series of articles for the Washington Times he did on the Bush administration during the aftermath of 9/11. If you recall, he said that Rumsfeld was kept insisting that Iraq must be responsible.

Here's an article from Newsweek entitled Storm Warnings if you're interested. It's not too detailed oriented but more middle of the road. A kind of middle of the road article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4571338/

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2003
Mon, 03-22-2004 - 9:01am
It's started. They sent out Condi Rice this morning to start the attack. You can tell they take it seriously when they start their attack with one of their major players. You must be psychic!
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2003
Mon, 03-22-2004 - 9:06am
I see I'm not the only one who feels as if we were being dragged back through time when Bush established all his father's old cronies in the administration. It was as if they were frozen in time, thawed out for the current Bush administration, and continued on where they left off.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Mon, 03-22-2004 - 9:28am
<>

Clarke's allegations agree with my opinions at the time. I had always suspected that the present administration was intent on revenge on Saddam that they used the 9/11 attack to invade Iraq. The frustration is that the polemical nature of the Bush's supporters rush to define you, e.g. don't support Bush your unpatriotic, closes any discussion. This type of simple-minded thought defies reason, and puts anyone who disagrees on the defensive. This is an attack on reason.

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 03-22-2004 - 12:59pm
I sense a desperate Democratic party. (nt)

Pages