Clarke ("terrorism czar"): Bush obsessed with Iraq

[Vympel]

Linl

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. 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 it.

and

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

and

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

People living in a fucking fantasy land. Sometimes it amazes me that anyone on this board can still plan to vote for these fucking deluded people, it really does. Can someone explain it to me? Please?

[Crown]

Yeah I just saw it on Today (the American NBC morning show) ... the Republicans are up in arms about it, but the Democrate senator who was interviewed was being very 'middle of the road' on it, which leads me to suggest that they view this as excellent, but don't want to stick their necks out too far, just in case Clarke turns out to be bullshitting and they get their fingers burned.

Did I just mix two metaphores?

[Hamel]

*biscuit slap the article*

People living in a fucking fantasy land. Sometimes it amazes me that anyone on this board can still plan to vote for these fucking deluded people, it really does. Can someone explain it to me? Please?

See, the Bush team keeps stumbling and fucking up with their excuses~ It's getting harder and harder for them to keep this charade going. People walk out of Powell's press conference, Rummy humiliates himself on television, and now this. However, no matter how hard this humpty dumpty falls, the right will crudely glue him together and hoist him on his throne again.

It's hard to guess why people stand by Bush's side, even now. There are several people here who don't like his domestic policies, but give the thumbs up for what we do overseas. Doooooooon't ask me.

[Natorgator]

I wonder when this guy will retract his comments after the Bush administration starts turning the screws on him (like they did with Paul O'Neill).

[Darth Wong]

I'm sure Stormbringer or TheSki will come in soon to explain how this is all being blown out of proportion or that Clinton would have done the same thing.

[Andrew J.]

Bush's intentions from the very beginning were to invade Iraq some way, it's just that 9/11 gave him an opportunity to do if more easily. He could lump Iraq in with Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda in the "War on Terror" and pretend they had something to do with it.

[The Albino Raven]

I'm sure Stormbringer or TheSki will come in soon to explain how this is all being blown out of proportion or that Clinton would have done the same thing.

Where is Axis Kast to defend America's values? The trick with Clinton is that, as much as Republicans hate him, he really wasn't a raging leftist. He, like Bush, was a Unilateralist, and although I doubt he would have done something like this, he certainly wasn't the hippie he was made out to be.

[Glocksman]

Clarke's being more than a little self-serving when he says this:

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives

How did cabinet meetings in DC help a suspicious Customs agent thousands of miles away stop a car with a trunk full of explosives? Good vibes?

While I don't doubt that some of his allegations are true, I'm not going to take everything he says at face value either.

[Durandal]

What does that have to do with the main point of the interview? You know, the one about the Bush administration being quite literally obsessed with Iraq to the point where the real threat (al Qaeda) took a back seat to deposing Saddam Hussein months before the September 11th terrorist attacks?

[Glocksman]

Did you miss the part where I said I don't doubt that many of his allegations are true??

And what that bit I quoted has to do with the main part of the interview is that if he's puffing himself up and/or distorting the truth here, why wouldn't he do the same in the rest of the interview?

And for the record, I don't doubt that Bush was obsessed with Iraq. I quit supporting the war long ago after I realized I was lied to about WMD.

As a result of the lies, I won't be voting Bush this year and I was hoping to vote for Dean. However, I can't support a scumbag like Kerry either, so I'll probably either vote 3rd party or leave that portion of the ballot blank.

[Axis Kast]

Well, let's start out with the obvious.

Both Clarke and O'Neill are former bureaucrats with every reason to be disgruntled...

Not to mention this interesting piece of news out of Libya ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Mar1.html

The olive-green weapons were specially designed to spread deadly mustard gas and nerve agents that were stored separately, said two senior U.S. officials familiar with the surprise disclosure. "The Libyans took us right to them," said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It was not a place where we would have looked."

Emphasis mine. Now we have it, straight from somebody linked to the search for weapons in "rogue" nations: there are certain places inspectors - even those who so-called "spot checks" - routinely pass up. Libya took advantage of that. After Kay's early departure, how can we assume that Iraq was any different?

[Darth Wong]

Let me get this straight: Libya had some restricted weapons ... and this has something to do with George Bush blaming Iraq for 9/11? Please explain the connection.

[Glocksman]

After Kay's early departure, how can we assume that Iraq was any different?

Umm...

We've completely occupied Iraq for some time and still haven't found them, perhaps?

[Knife]

Meh, I won't deny that Bush had his eye on Iraq since 2000 but I still find it some what humorous that Clark says that Bush didn't take AQ seriously when Clark himself was the terrorist czar in Clinton's administration.

I'm not playing a 'Clinton did it first' game so don't jump on me. I'm just saying that it is not that unbelievable that Bush would not take AQ any more seriously than Clinton did because Bush was operating off of the same intellegence about AQ as Clinton was.

[Darth Wong]

Meh, I won't deny that Bush had his eye on Iraq since 2000 but I still find it some what humorous that Clark says that Bush didn't take AQ seriously when Clark himself was the terrorist czar in Clinton's administration.

I'm not playing a 'Clinton did it first' game so don't jump on me. I'm just saying that it is not that unbelievable that Bush would not take AQ any more seriously than Clinton did because Bush was operating off of the same intellegence about AQ as Clinton was.

Clinton took some pre-emptive strikes against Al-Quaeda. Admittedly they were ineffective and he was reluctant to risk American lives in pursuit of these little fuckers, but how much action did GW Bush approve prior to 9/11? In fact, did he not run partly on the notion that Clinton was too activist in foreign affairs? Does the phrase "no more nation-building" ring a bell?

[HemlockGrey]

I recently read Al Franken's book, and it contains an interesting little section on this very issue.

Actually, Clinton implemented an aggressive anti-terrorist policy, stop numerous attacks and developed a very detailed plan on fighting terrorism in the final months of his administration that he handed off to Bush, evidently believing he would implement it.

[Knife]

Clinton took some pre-emptive strikes against Al-Quaeda. Admittedly they were ineffective and he was reluctant to risk American lives in pursuit of these little fuckers, but how much action did GW Bush approve prior to 9/11? In fact, did he not run partly on the notion that Clinton was too activist in foreign affairs? Does the phrase "no more nation-building" ring a bell?

It was more reactive than pre-emptive but yeah he did do something durring his eight years. But thats whats so humorous about Clark. In the eight years of Clinton we lobbed some Tommahawks and did some work on terrorists but Bush only had 9 months of office before September 11th and Clark wants to say that the Bush administration did nothing before hand. What time did he have to do something? I suppose that he could have started doing something before September 11th but I doubt it would have beared enough fruit to have prevented the attacks on NY.

And yeah, I do find it ironic that Bush ran on a 'no nation building' plank in his campaign. He is so far from being the ideal President.

[Axis Kast]

Let me get this straight: Libya had some restricted weapons ... and this has something to do with George Bush blaming Iraq for 9/11? Please explain the connection.

No. But the fact that Clarke and O'Neill both have fairly massive axes to grind should preclude us from taking their rants at face value.

Libya's restricted weapons - or rather, how they hid those weapons - have to do with a seperate (yet related) topic: the War on Iraq.

[Andrew J.]

Emphasis mine. Now we have it, straight from somebody linked to the search for weapons in "rogue" nations: there are certain places inspectors - even those who so-called "spot checks" - routinely pass up. Libya took advantage of that. After Kay's early departure, how can we assume that Iraq was any different?

Maybe it shows that UN inspectors are more thorough than ours?

[Illuminatus Primus]

No. But the fact that Clarke and O'Neill both have fairly massive axes to grind should preclude us from taking their rants at face value.

Perhaps that would be so, but nothing is in a vacuum. Reports that Rumsfeld set up his own group to contrive and collect information specific to Iraq and regarding possible Iraqi links to terror--rather than assessing the greatest links and following them back to their source--and other evidence regarding the apparent fixation with Iraq constructs a general picture of a poor attitude of research and policy making in the Bush White House. Clarke and O'Neill are corroborated by other sources. This "they have reason to exaggerate" hardly dispells the general indication.

Libya's restricted weapons - or rather, how they hid those weapons - have to do with a seperate (yet related) topic: the War on Iraq.

That kind of suggestion was hardly enough to create the impression of existing threats in the form of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that quite simply weren't and aren't there.

[The Kernel]

It was more reactive than pre-emptive but yeah he did do something durring his eight years. But thats whats so humorous about Clark. In the eight years of Clinton we lobbed some Tommahawks and did some work on terrorists but Bush only had 9 months of office before September 11th and Clark wants to say that the Bush administration did nothing before hand. What time did he have to do something? I suppose that he could have started doing something before September 11th but I doubt it would have beared enough fruit to have prevented the attacks on NY.

And yeah, I do find it ironic that Bush ran on a 'no nation building' plank in his campaign. He is so far from being the ideal President.

He did completely ignore the Clinton-era's plans for dealing with terrorism as HemlockGrey pointed out.

[Invader ZIm]

Clinton took some pre-emptive strikes against Al-Quaeda. Admittedly they were ineffective and he was reluctant to risk American lives in pursuit of these little fuckers, but how much action did GW Bush approve prior to 9/11? In fact, did he not run partly on the notion that Clinton was too activist in foreign affairs? Does the phrase "no more nation-building" ring a bell?

I hate to point this out, but nothing Clinton did in regards to Al-Quaeda was pre-emptive. All of Clinton's actions were in response to sucessful operations by Al-Quaeda. I'm not bring that up to mack anysort of compairison between Bush and Clinton. The Honest truth of the matter is that Americans (and by extention our politians) did not take terrorism seriously until 911.

I blame the 1993 attack on the WTC in large part - had that event been more damaging (not nessesarily on the scale of 911) then most of what followed would not have happened. But certainly after that event most people had a sense of "thats their best shot". We (Americans) decided collectively to let this problem lie all thourgh the 8 years of Clinton and 293 Days into Bush's term. I feel absolutly confident is saying that we would have continued to ignore it if given the chance. Had 911 been something on the scale of the USS Cole or an Embassy bombing, it would have made the front page for a few days and then been forgotten.

[Col. Crackpot]

hmmmm. someone has a book to sell. said person wants to sell many books and make lots of money. inflammatory rhetoric sells lots of books. controversy sells lots of books. backstabbing sells many books Said person fills book with inflamatory rhetoric, controversy and backstabbing. Said person makes lots of money. Concurrent agendas of authors laughing their way to the bank are ignored in ideological debates. wanking ensues.

[Knife]

He did completely ignore the Clinton-era's plans for dealing with terrorism as HemlockGrey pointed out.

Yes he did. But my point is is that the US Goverment didn't take the situation seriously at all for over a decade.

One ex-official (demoted and re shuffled around at that) that spanned three administrations that really didn't do anything at all with the situation can hardly call foul with only one administration when it was only in for 9-ish months, at the time of September 11th, and the two administrations before clock in at a total of 12 years.

This strikes me not as a Bush/Clinton/Bush thing, rather a Clarke thing. He's pissed and wants a nice wad of cash for retirement. Sour grapes to wine, as it were.

[Darth Wong]

hmmmm. someone has a book to sell. said person wants to sell many books and make lots of money. inflammatory rhetoric sells lots of books. controversy sells lots of books. backstabbing sells many books Said person fills book with inflamatory rhetoric, controversy and backstabbing. Said person makes lots of money. Concurrent agendas of authors laughing their way to the bank are ignored in ideological debates. wanking ensues.

Please look up "Appeal to Motive" fallacy before you make any more of an ass out of yourself.