New book by Richard Clarke exposes inner
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 03-19-2004 - 9:46pm |
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
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?
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
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).
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?)
http://www.9-11commission.gov/ under staff statement no.5.
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.
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.
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.
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
Pages