Posted on 03/19/2004 3:13:02 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Edited on 03/19/2004 5:25:30 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
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 [the 9/11 attacks],'" 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 [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] 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." Developing...
Moderator note: Be sure to read the related story on Richard Clarke:
FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR RICHARD CLARKE'S LEGACY OF MISCALCULATION
The result of that miscalculation is tragically clear. It is also clear that Clinton was incapable of making a tough decision and allowed himself to take the easy way out.
Can you think about what would happen if we did OBL's job and deposed the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
"These were men who believed that there was no greater meance in the world than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and they argued that if the president was serious about going after those who harbor terrorists, he had to put Hussein at the top of that list.....
(Rumsfeld said) "Its not just simply a matter of capturing people", he said, "and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states that sponsor terrorism. It will be a campaign, not a single action. And we are going to keep after these people and the people who support them until it stops"
Bush at War, page 60. Hardback edition.
I was watching FNC live when the second plane hit the WTC. It was only seconds before the guy who was anchoring (John ???) mentioned OBL. My brain was still trying to process what my eyes had just seen.
If that comes into the equation,it indicates that Al-Queada had nothing to do with 9/11.The Iraqi training facility was used by ideological enemies of Osama like Hezbollah(whose leader constantly refers to him as as 'vain' and 'out for his own interests not islams'),who Saddam was famous for funding.The Iraqi intelligience agent who exposed the facility said that Osama had zero to do with 9/11 for this very fact.I lean towards the FBI/CIA/White House belief Iraq had no connection whatsoever to 9/11.This whole issue has nothing to do with why it was invaded and any attempt to connect Saddam to 9/11 implies the overthrow of the Taliban(in favor of the Northern Alliance who were much more likely to have been trained at said Iraqi camps),was unjustified.Let's also not forget that Osama and his hordes were the first to offer their services to the Saudi government to drive Saddam out of Kuwait back in Gulf 1(him being rejected in favor of Americans really bruised the ego and started off the whole anti-Saudi/American alliance stance).
Osama had been one of the biggest threats to Baathists for years.I'm not discounting that Saddam did fund terrorism,ALOT of it,but it was predominantly in Lebanon and Israel.If evidence is discovered that he did in fact have a hand in 9/11,then it will spell big problems for the Bush Admin.
It is about as likely to believe Saddam and Osama were in on it together as much as its likely to believe the IRA and Unionists are in on it together.Both terrorists,but each others enemies more than anyone elses.However,taken in seperate contexts,overthrowing both the Taliban and Saddam were justified.
Close enough for 'FReeper work'. ;-)
I don't think AQ or Osama were household words with me pre 9-11.
Nor I, but by the end of that day....
I am amazed at the knowledge and expertise on FR.
Indeed.
Interesting point.
Why does Clarke seem to have jumped to the conclusion on 9/11 that AQ was responsible? What information did he have at that point which proved this?
Israeli intelligence: Iraq financed attacks
Iraq recruited Saudi billionaire fugitive Osama Bin Laden and his Islamic allies to carry out the suicide attacks around the United States, according to Israeli intelligence.
Israeli officials and intelligence analysts said the suicide hijackings that downed the World Trade Center and destroyed parts of the Pentagon was too large an operation for any one group. The analysts said the operation was also too big even for a coalition of Islamic terrorists headed by Saudi billionaire fugitive Osama Bin Laden.
Laurie Mylroie on CBS pointing out possible Iraqi connection to NYC and DC terror attack...
(cf. Iraq behind destruction of World Trade Center? - Attacks with weapons of mass destruction next?)
US rallies the west for attack on Afghanistan[Nato drawing up plans for invasion!]
However, many US experts on terrorism, including the former CIA director, James Woolsey, and the former Nato commander in Europe, Wesley Clark, said they believed that Tuesday's terrorist operation also had state sponsorship, and mentioned Iraq as a suspect.
Then on 9/14:
Ex-CIA Chief Woolsey Sees Iraqi Fingerprints
Etc. So Clarke's allegation is hardly "news" and hardly scandalous. Bill Gertz and Matt Drudge were covering this angle by 9/21/01:
Bin Laden linked with Iraqi agents days before attack (SIREN)
As were Newsweek and Yahoo on 9/23/01:
Rove and Hughes Not Included in Nightly Meeting of Principals
Sunday September 23, 10:53 am Eastern Time Press Release SOURCE: Newsweek
NEW YORK, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- At a two-day meeting last week of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which is chaired by hard-liner Richard Perle, eminent conservatives including Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich reached a consensus that U.S. military forces should strike Iraq shortly after an initial blow against Afghanistan in response to the terror attack on New York and Washington, Newsweek reports in the current issue. ``When the U.S. loses what may be more than 6,000 people, there has to be reaction so that the world clearly knows that things have changed,'' Gingrich tells Newsweek.
But Secretary of State Colin Powell fears a strike on Iraq could shatter his efforts to build a worldwide anti-terror coalition. The aim would be to pool intelligence on terrorists with ``global reach'' and to gain police cooperation which he and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice believe is at least as critical to cracking down on terror as military action, report Foreign Editor Michael Hirsh and Diplomatic Correspondent Roy Gutman in the October 1 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, September 24).
The strike-Iraq contingent fears American credibility will be damaged if the U.S. gets bogged down in Afghanistan. It also believes Saddam's weapons of mass destruction could be used against America next, Newsweek reports. There is ``a recognition that it will be very tough to get bin Laden in the rocky and mountainous terrain of Afghanistan,'' said one participant in the Pentagon meetings. ``There's a feeling we've got to do something that counts -- and bombing some caves is not something that counts.''
On the other hand, Powell and deputies believe a full-blown military strike on Baghdad would only kill many Iraqis, enrage the Arab world and probably not dispose of Saddam, who has slowly won new allies with promises of oil deals since 1991.
As the debate continues, the importance of conventional political considerations are being played down. Newsweek reports that President George W. Bush's closest domestic advisers, Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, don't take part in the key nightly ``principals'' meetings of Powell, Rice, Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
So basically this is another disingenuous 60 Minutes non-news hit piece against the President on behalf of the Kerry campaign.
The best minds in the world met and discussed the options and came up with a plan. It's obvious what the plan was.
"Iran is almost done. Put a fork in the mullahs," Cheny said at the strategy meeting on 9/15/02.
"15 of those hijackers were Saudis, Dick. We all know the Saudis are smiling to our faces but stabbing us in the back with their terrorist schools. Now our concern over their precious oil has come home to roost. We ought to put those products of incest royals out of business," the President responded.
"With all due respect, Mr. President," Condi interjected. "While I agree that our efforts to deal with the Saudis via diplomacy has failed, now is simply not the time to go after Saudi Arabia. They do control over one third of the world's oil reserves. It's a sad but true fact that we've got the royal family by the short hairs because we help defend them against Huissein. But we can always count on them pumping the oil when we need it. We've kept them on the back burner for too many years but I would submit that if we get Hussein out of Iraq, Iran will fall. And that baby dictator Assad will bend quickly under pressure. Mubarrak is nothing but a thug. Arafat's out of business once we get Hussein. Saudi Arabia will fall on its own without us so much as lifting a finger. That is if we follow the plan."
"Which is," a booming voice burst from the end of the table. Donald Rumsfeld stood and cleared his throat. "We knock Afghanistan out right away. It's a lawless country and Osama and the rest of the nuts roam unfettered. THEN we keep fanning the flames of the UN, get them to keep coming up with resolutions on Iraq. Maybe Colin can get them to move but I doubt it. At the right time we get Hussein and his evil spawn sons out of there. Iran and Syria might need some help from our special ops but they're going down. Saudi Arabia won't hold up under the pressure. Then we can gently 'help' the royal family set up a decent democracy. All the while they'll keep pumping the oil because, well they know they better had. We don't need gas shortages if we're thinking about such a large military operation. Plus it's just plain bad politics to make the public suffer if we can plan this right."
Colin shrugged. "He's right, much as I hate to say it Mr. President. The public will frankly handle a little spin over Saudi Arabia so long as we're going into Afghanistan and Iraq. We should get those lying sons of pigs royal family FIRST thing. They want their lives of luxury so they raise the children to hate America. Some of those kids grew up and attacked our innocent civilians. But if we do it right, sir, the ends will justify the means." The President looked around the table. He was so pleased he had such experts on his team. "So that's it?" the President asked, slapping his hands on the table then using them as leverage to lift himself out of the chair. It had been a long meeting.
"Afghanistan, Iraq, help out in Iran, squeeze Assad the whole time, get Israel to help with intelligence, then we have leverage to put the thumbs on Mubarak and finally the Saudis? It'll be a new place over in that hell hole part of the world. For too many years we let thugs and criminals control all that oil money. They went a bit too far and they know it when their people came over here and attacked ours."
The President looked around the room steadily. Each attendee looked directly into his eyes with the clear determination of truth.
"We're not going to make that mistake again," the President said, then left the room.
The discussion should have happend on about 02/11/1991. If we would have taken them out during Gulf War I we would not have had to discuss it on 09/11/01.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.