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: 03-18-2000
Fri, 03-26-2004 - 5:10pm

White House Fights Clarke Fire With Fire
Bush Aides Rush to Head Off Damage


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25176-2004Mar25.html


As his advisers tell it, President Bush had tired of the White House playing defense on issue after issue. So this week, his aides turned the full power of the executive branch on Richard A. Clarke, formerly the administration's top counterterrorism official, who charges in his new book that Bush responded lackadaisically in 2001 to repeated warnings of an impending terrorist attack.


Bush's aides unleashed a two-pronged strategy that called for preemptive strikes on Clarke before most people could have seen his book, coupled with saturation media appearances by administration aides. They questioned the truthfulness of Clarke's claims, his competence as an employee, the motives behind the book's timing, and even the sincerity of the pleasantries in his resignation letter and farewell photo session with Bush.


The barrage was unusual for a White House that *typically tries to ignore its critics, and it was driven by White House calculations that Clarke would appear credible to average viewers. Bush's advisers are concerned that Clarke's assertions are capable of inflicting political damage on a president who is staking his claim for reelection in large measure on his fight against terrorism. *'right'>


James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, said he was stunned by the ferocity of the White House campaign but said Clarke "is raising fundamental questions about the credibility of the president and his staff in regard to what they did to keep America safe."


"They are vulnerable, which is why they are attacking so hard," Thurber said. "You have to go back to Vietnam or Watergate to get the same feel about the structure of argument coming out of the White House against Clarke's statements."


Bookstores reported soaring demand for the book, "Against All Enemies," which was published Monday and is in its fifth printing, with almost 500,000 copies in print.


A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, conducted Monday through Wednesday, found significant public interest in Clarke's criticisms, with nearly nine in 10 of the 1,065 Americans surveyed saying they had heard of them. Of those polled, 42 percent said they had heard "a lot" about his claims and 47 percent said they had heard "a little."


White House communications director Dan Bartlett said officials had to take Clarke seriously because "at face value, based on his résumé and experience, you would think this guy is credible.


"Particularly because of how egregious the accusations are, you couldn't let them stand," he said.


In their effort to undermine Clarke, Bush's aides departed from some of their most cherished practices. They invited reporters into West Wing offices where they rarely tread, for on-the-record interviews with top officials. They released an e-mail from Clarke to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that they say is at odds with the account Clarke gave during his testimony to the independent panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They said he was disgruntled because his application to be deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security had been rejected.


An official also read reporters an e-mail that Rice had sent Clarke chastising him for skipping several of her morning staff meetings.


Perhaps most surprising, aides who routinely spar over such distinctions as "White House official" and "senior administration official" allowed Fox News to unmask Clarke as the anonymous briefer in an August 2002 White House conference call that highlighted the administration's efforts in the war on terrorism. The administration's allies say Clarke's statements that day conflict with allegations in his book.


In contrast to his assertions that the Bush administration did not consider terrorism an urgent problem, Clarke told reporters in that briefing that before the attacks, Bush's aides had developed "a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." He said the administration also approved a fivefold increase in CIA funding for covert action to pursue al Qaeda.


Clarke said Wednesday that as an administration official delivering the background briefing, he focused on positive developments but left out the administration's failings.























Officials from both parties said it would be at least a couple of days before it is clear whether the offensive succeeded in eroding Clarke's credibility or whether the public, and especially independent voters, would wind up viewing him as a courageous whistle-blower. Republicans said the blitz could backfire if more facts emerge to bolster Clarke's version, and if the public views him as a sympathetic figure because of his apology to the victims' families.








...
cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 03-26-2004 - 5:40pm
I love watching the Shrub and Cheney the Cheater try to spin the truth! If Richard Clarke isn't telling the truth, then why is the Shrub and company so worried? Why has the Shrub had all of his merry gang of liars on television trying to discredit Richard Clarke?

Why won't The Shrub allow Condi Rice to talk to the panel? Can we please impeach this fool?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 03-26-2004 - 5:49pm
I agree with Clarke, too. If Richard Clarke isn't telling the truth, then why is President and his gang working so hard to discredit Clarke. ?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 8:04am
<>

There is a difference when you are presenting "information as a representative of the government" and when you are presenting "information as a private citizen." I thought it was welll known as a "representative of a government" you are speaking for the government--not yourself. This is a political tactic. Can you imagine if every representative for an official gave his personal opinion instead of what the policy of the official was. This is why these representatives are often called "talking heads." They are paid to deliver the party line, and all politicans know this.

The other thing I don't understand is that if Clarke was such a irresponsible employee, why didn't the administration fire him. Contrary to the Cons fog machine, Clarke was not demoted, but asked to be reassigned because he could no longer "spout the party line."

Has anybody else noted that the "talking heads" rushed out to defend the president so fast they didn't have time to get their story straight. Dickie boy is saying he was "out of the loop" and Condi is saying he was in the loop.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 8:35am
I know who I believe. Then I'm not without bias.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 1:48pm
<< know who I believe. Then I'm not without bias.>>

If this were not the case you would not be human.

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 9:20pm
Exactly!

C

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 03-27-2004 - 9:28pm
<> Yes, it does.

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sun, 03-28-2004 - 10:35am
I found Mr. Clarke to be believable this morning on Meet The Press. He clearly stated that that both the Bush as well as the Clinton administration didn't so all they could. He also stated that that the Bush admin didn't take him him seriuosly which actually was confirmed to me in a press release that Chris Matthews had on that President Bush had said shortly after 9/11 that OBL was not considered and immediate threat. If this admin wasn't so worried about this book then why go after Mr Clarke in such a personal way. Discredit what he is saying in the book yes if they feel that he is not giving the entire story but why the personal attacks. Disgraceful but what else should we expect from this hate filled admin.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 03-28-2004 - 1:37pm

>"I found Mr. Clarke to be believable this morning on Meet The Press."<


That was such a good interview.


Here's the link to the

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages