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: 05-08-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 9:13am
There you go. Assuming again (that I read NYT). LOL You know what they say about that. If you want to make one of yourself , that's fine, but don't try to drag me with you. My name isn't Pinocchio.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 9:14am

So Clinton is bad for not killing him, but Bush is fine for not killing him because if he had the "left" would have been all over him for killing him?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 9:18am
Clarks assertions have all been dealt with by two previous books, one by Richard Miniter "Losing bin Laden", and the other by Gerlad Posner "Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11."

Both of these books take on different aspects of Clark's points, basically taking them to pieces, and offering up evidence to the contrary. Posners book actually has some former Clinton administration officials on the record as saying not taking bin Laden when he was offered was a very big mistake.

Looks like Clark was either out of the loop for the entire Clinton years, or he was just viewed as a kook. (Not to mention the political and monetary angles of his book) He wants to make a lot of money, and he is also teaching a class at Harvard with an advisor to John Kerry (who he is very good friends with).

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 9:23am
If Clark was such an expert and knew all of this information back in 1993, then why didnt Clinton use this knowledge to do anything about bin Laden or al Queda?????

It seems that even Clinton didn't want to listen to Clark, but Clark is only interested in blaming Bush (personal motives are a strong possibility here...money, embarassment, political agenda through friendships?)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 9:31am
FYI, Richard Clarke will be on TV before the 9-11 commission. At the present it is on both C-Span and CNN. Also, if I remember a very concise introduction can be found at

http://www.9-11commission.gov/ under staff statement no.5.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 9:35am
Are you interested in gathering information so you can make an informed decision, or are you interested in bad-mouthing Clarke and Clinton.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2004
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 10:35am
I feel that Clarke is coming out with this book at such an interesting time. ELECTION TIME!

My question is: Why didn't he come out with this right when it happened??? Why is it that he's focusing on the Bush administration when Clinton had TWO opportunities to capture Bin Laden????!?!?!? These opportunities to capture Bin Laden were when Clarke was serving in the white house AND he voted against capturing Osama. Hmmmm how come he didn't bring THAT up in all his interviews?!?!?

The media is just so liberal and so one sided, it's not even funny. It's a shame that we can't have just the facts so we can make decisions on our own. It's sad that we have to be force fed our opinions by the media and the liberals. This really angers me.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 11:16am
I have done, and am still doing research on this (probably more than anyone else besides the people who have written books about it {strange hobby of mine bearing in mind my former profession}), and to date, it shows that Clark is turning the facts of the case.

The facts so far show that Clinton is culpable as much, even if not more than Bush. I agree with the assertion by Clark that Bush did not take al Queda seriously as he took office, but remember, we are doing this with hindsight, which is why I do not think that what Clinton did is criminally negligent as some have suggested.

The bottom line is that both are to blame, and neither side should be pointing fingers as it does nothing to solve the problem.

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 12:38pm
Clarke and O'Neill should have a pitty-party.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 03-23-2004 - 2:34pm

Everyone is going to report everything from their perspective, it is impossible not to, you can take things as "unbiased" as you want to but in the end all that means is trying to look at things from different angles.

Pages