White House denies Bush obsession with Iraq

Washington Times ^ | 3/23/04 | James G. Lakely

[kattracks]

The White House yesterday denied accusations by a former antiterrorism adviser that President Bush could have stopped the September 11 attacks and has set back the war on terrorism with his obsession to pin the blame on Saddam Hussein.

Richard A. Clarke, in a book released yesterday, says he tried in vain to convince the president of the threat posed by terror network al Qaeda, then realized "with almost a sharp physical pain" that the administration would use the September 11 attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq.

[Betaille]

John Kerry may not win the black vote.

[marron]

Kerry-Clarke-Clark-Wilson. The best and the brightest this country has to offer, at least from the Blue States.

These people give me the hives.

Oh, by the way, did you know that there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Its true, I heard it on TV.

[Steven W.]

If I'm Bush on 9/11 I'd be darn-pressed to find out whether Iraq had any link with training the hijackers ... after all Salman Pak was used to train international terrorists in the hijacking of airplanes. Bush obviously realized pretty quickly that Clarke is an idiot - he asks him to look into it and Clarke immediately responds "there is no connection"! How did he (Clarke) know? Hours after 9/11? KNOWING there was absolutely no connection? It's no wonder Bush told him sternly to go check and - while Clarke seems to think that was his greatest moment - probably the point where Clarke's fate was sealed as somebody to get out of the government ASAP as totally emblematic of all the problems plaguing one of the last remnants of the legacy Clintoninsta regime.

[marron]

If you read carefully, you find that in all the years Clarke served Clinton, few of his ideas for direct action were carried out.

Bush, on the other hand, took Clarke's rather modest ideas and went way beyond them; within days Special Forces were on the ground and within weeks the Talibs were either shaving, hiding, or dead. With all of his whining, Clarke can't get around one very simple fact: Bush acted; Clarke and Clinton did not.

[tbeatty]

AS I recall, Iraq was the only country to withold condolences for 9/11. Even Iran and Libya sent condolences. Iraq would have been tops on my list of countries that would have been complicit. But I thought the Bush administration showed good restraint. We didn't take military action until November. That, to me, shows excellent judegement and patience. We even tried a negotiated settlement.

Does anyone remember the pressure we put on Pakistan? That was a great coup to pull them away from Afghanistan and become our ally. That was also great restrain. Bush and Co have shown excellent judgement and leadership. I don't think we could have asked for more.

And I hate the title of the article. It's like "Bush denies beating his wife."

[Howlin]

"He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Well, one thing we DO know, Mr. Clarke, is that under YOUR eight years as "czar" for Bill Clinton, jack didn't get done.

[Texasforever]

Richard Cohen, Clinton's SecDef was on CNN and he refused to endorse Clarke as a credible source no matter how hard the CNN guy pressed him.

[EGPWS]

In a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast on CBS Sunday night, Mr. Clarke said he found it "outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism."

The irony of it all is that Dubya' campaign has vast amount of funds to apply to his reelection efforts, when in fact all he has to do is sit back and let his foe do the talking to guarantee his reelection!

[EGPWS]

Well, one thing we DO know, Mr. Clarke, is that under YOUR eight years as "czar" for Bill Clinton, jack didn't get done.

Yes this is true, less the accomplishments of making the public complacent and happy with political rhetoric, while at the same time bringing himself to a euphoric level of happiness....in his own personal way.

[kattracks]

Mr. Clarke wrote that Mr. Bush "dragged" him into the White House Situation Room the day after the attacks and told him to "see if Saddam did this."     

Mr. Clarke said al Qaeda, and not Iraq, was behind the strikes. But Mr. Bush is said to have insisted: "I know, I know but ... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."     

Mr. McClellan said White House records show no evidence of such a meeting between Mr. Clarke and Mr. Bush on Sept. 12, 2001, and that Mr. Bush "doesn't have any recollection" of any such meeting or conversation.

Apparently, Clarke had no recollection of this meeting either when he did this 3/20/2002 Frontline interview.

The June-July warnings. A lot of things happened at that point. Do we think now that Sept. 11 was in fact what was being talked about?

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Because one of the things that surprises a lot of the public, I think, is that immediately after Sept. 11, the administration knew exactly who had done it. Was that why?

No. On the day of Sept. 11, then the day or two following, we had a very open mind. CIA and FBI were asked, "See if it's Hezbollah. See if it's Hamas. Don't assume it's Al Qaeda. Don't just assume it's Al Qaeda." Frankly, there was absolutely not a shred of evidence that it was anybody else. The evidence that it was Al Qaeda began just to be massive within days after the attack.

[kattracks]

Well, one thing we DO know, Mr. Clarke, is that under YOUR eight years as "czar" for Bill Clinton, jack didn't get done.

According to Clarke, in the same Frontline interview, "the Clinton administration activities against bin Laden were massive."

When did they recognize that?

By the time 1998 the embassy bombings occurred, I think everyone in the Clinton Cabinet would have said that Al Qaeda is a serious threat. In fact, if you look in retrospect at what the Clinton administration did after those embassy bombings through to the end of that administration -- since now most of it is public knowledge, lot of it was highly classified at the time -- if 9/11 had not happened, most Americans looking at what the Clinton administration did about bin Laden would have said, "What an overreaction. Why were they so preoccupied with bin Laden?"

There was an enormous amount of activity that was carried on if you look at the predicate, prior to the attack on the Cole destroyer in October 2000. The predicate was Americans killed at two embassies in Africa. Yet there was this massive program that was initiated to go after bin Laden. It didn't succeed, but it tried very hard. It did prevent some attacks, and it delayed others. But looked at in vacuum, the Clinton administration activities, 1998 to the end of the administration against bin Laden -- if you look at that without knowing in advance that 9/11 is going to happen, if you can separate that in your mind, the Clinton administration activities against bin Laden were massive.

So the frustration that a lot of us had, that people weren't paying enough attention, largely ended with the 1998 embassy bombings.

WHAT massive program? WHAT activities? Bombing an aspirin factory and hitting a camel in the butt with a missile?

But here's what clinton DIDN'T do.

Some also say that due to the Lewinsky scandal, more action perhaps was never undertaken. In your eyes?

The interagency group on which I sat and John O'Neill sat -- we never asked for a particular action to be authorized and were refused. We were never refused. Any time we took a proposal to higher authority, with one or two exceptions, it was approved....

But didn't you push for military action after the Cole?

Yes, that's one of the exceptions.

How important is that exception?

I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed. So many, many trained and indoctrinated Al Qaeda terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn't have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier.

Well, I'm not prepared to call it a mistake. It was a judgment made by people who had to take into account a lot of other issues. None of these decisions took place in isolation. There was the Middle East peace process going on. There was the war in Yugoslavia going on. People above my rank had to judge what could be done in the counterterrorism world at a time when they were also pursuing other national goals.

So, according to the clinton administration US National Security took second place to these clinton legacy builders.

[jojodamofo]

I am sure that I speak to the heart not only of every old Republican, but to that of every American. We all feel part of a historic mission. For us, the goal of the war on terror is not only clear, it is also unalterable and unchangeable.

The longer the war on terror lasts, the more fanatically and committedly we pursue it. To seek the goal means to follow the President, to do his work with loyalty and devotion, to turn every personal thought and deed toward him in the midst of the storms of the war on terror. We are happy to have him on our side, for he incorporates not only our firm faith in victory, but also the constancy of our national leadership, the character of our war outlook, and the integrity of our war aims.