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
However, there is (at least unclassified), only one 'how-to-pilot-Boeings-but-not-land-them' training camp on the planet, in Iraq, and there has been only one country where Boeings were not landed (yet didn't hit ground or sea), the US.
You must forgive me if I leap to conclusions and connect irrelevant dots.
He's probably writing a book, or has already written one. Looking for publicity. This is just my hunch as someone who follows publishing deals all the time.
MM
Because that would be like going after the Lincoln government in Washington in retaliation for a terror-attack coming from General Lee. "Al Qaeda" is the rebel army from Saudi Arabia. This is a Saudi civil war. Does "Al Qaeda" have their moles, sympathizers, etc within the Saudi, uh, extended family? Why, yes they do. So of course you're right that "Al Qaeda" is connected to elements of the "Saudi" megafamily. But at least some of that is just protection money, because on the other hand, "Al Qaeda" are the sworn enemies of the "corrupt, worldly" Saudi leadership. Why do you think they wanted our troops (who were protecting that Saudi leadership) out of there?
The Saudis are bad and "Al Qaeda" is worse. I don't really want anyone to "win" that civil war but I certainly don't want "Al Qaeda" to win it and take over Araby. The worst thing we could have done would have been to say "well in response to this, let's decapitate the Saudi government". We may as well shoot ourselves in the foot. The fact that Arabia supplies such a large fraction of oil is, indeed, a huge factor here.
A better approach would have been to fight against "Al Qaeda" overtly, and blunt their immediate power and sanctuaries in Afghanistan, while at the same time quietly taking steps to back away from the Saudis. But of course we couldn't even start to do that with Hussein in power in Iraq, because we needed our military in Arabia to "contain" him. So all things considered, after destroying "Al Qaeda"'s home bases, we would have had to oust Hussein, then remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, then get the oil flowing from Iraq so we're no longer reliant on the warped Saudis.....
Hey wait a minute, this all sounds suspiciously like what we ARE doing, doesn't it? Stay tuned.
The main (I should say ONLY) reason for this clymer to come out now is to boost his book and give 60 minutes an antiBush moment for the week.
There were way more than a few. I was directly across the river and there was not a single word of dissent to be heard. Many were silent, but all who said anything, were out for blood. Too many of those same people today need reminding of what is going on, and what is at stake.
Exactly my thoughts.
You are close to the strategic reason for Iraq. We need both a foothold and a source of oil before confronting Saudi Arabia. with the proper shift in the balance of power thru control of Iraq, we can manipulate Saudi Arabia.
Give someone enough rope and this is what happens
I have been saying since day one that President Bush needs to clean out State and DOJ or face backstabbing as a daily occurrence.I guess I should have added "and other klintoon political appointees". It always comes back to haunt you.
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.