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

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 4:16am
There is an interesting take on the White House response, given that they had Clark's book for months before it was published, at:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 6:36am

>" I can't help wondering who at the White House reviewed Clark's book and cleared it for publication? And where will they be working next week?

They sure don't act like they saw this one coming. Maybe the warning never made it "up the chain". I guess it wouldn't be the first time that happened, eh? "<


LOL


When I heard Clarke say, on Meet the Press,

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 7:21am

BTW the underlined dates are clickable.


Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap.


A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth.


Pre-9/11 Intelligence



  • CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
  • FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles.
  • CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer."
  • FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA."
  • CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
  • FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States."
  • CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
  • FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11.
  • CLAIM: "Our plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
  • FACT:

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 9:23am
That is some article. No wonder Rice doesn't want to testify under oath. Let's hope the information gets into the appropriate hands.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 12:52pm
That is a really good article that pokes some holes in this belief that Bush has done a great job in handling this issue before AND after the attack on 9/11.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 2:01pm
Too bad this info. isn't shown on the 6 o'clock evening news,

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Mon, 03-29-2004 - 9:22pm
Very Interesting thanks
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 8:23am
Doesn't look like too much of a compromise to me.
Compromise sought over Rice's 9/11 testimony.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/rice.testimony/index.html

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 03-30-2004 - 3:36pm
>> He was horified by the 9/11 crises and he carries a burden: he foresaw disaster and couldn't stop it, ergo, he is in some way responsible for the deaths. On it's face this is ridiculous, but it is the way the human psyche works

Excellent point....although he is as much to blame as Clinton or Bush, which with hindsight is a great deal, but at the time, who knows.....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-31-2004 - 1:26pm
I guess you both were not aware of the fact that the legal department within the White House cannot let the information out, but they legally have to review the material in the book to be certain that no secret information is being given out.

Pages