Skip to comments.White House Fires Back At Clarke (BUSH KNEW! Part II . . . or is this Part III?)
Posted on 03/26/2004 10:42:13 AM PST by JohnHuang2
(CBS/AP) After two days of Sept. 11 hearings at which it was charged he did not treat the terror threat with sufficient urgency, President Bush felt compelled to respond. Excerpted-click here for full article.
BUSH KNEW! Part II . . . or is this Part III?
In yet another bombshell revelation that has Washington again reeling in shock, a new book claims that Bush, months before the Sept. 11th attacks -- indeed, within days of being sworn in -- began planning an Iraq invasion. Oh, wait -- that's another book . . . by whatchamacallit? . . . um, Paul O'Neill.
Sending shock-waves across Washington this time are allegations by former Clinton-holdover, Dick Clarke, who claims that Bush, months after being sworn in -- indeed, within days after the Sept 11th attacks -- began planning an Iraq invasion. (On invasion planning, O'Neill was off by only 8 tiny months, per Clarke).
Outlandishly enough, the day after 9/11, Bush took Clarke aside and ordered him to see if Saddam was in any way involved in 9/11, a flabbergasted Clarke, author of a new book, told "60 Minutes" in an interview aired Sunday. Inexplicably, Bush did not immediately rule out Saddam, sponsor of state-terrorism who held a grudge against the U.S., of possible involvement in state-terrorism against the U.S. Asking questions of a possible Saddam-9/11 link, say critics, was flat-out beneath contempt. It was reckless, irresponsible, tasteless -- unsavory innuendo bordering on character assassination of Saddam. (Bush -- has anyone ever told you, you just don't go around accusing innocent dictators like that? Other than killing and gassing a million Kurds and Iranians, what kind of sicko Saddam-hater sees Saddam capable of killing 3,000 infidels, anyway?) After a comprehensive 6-day investigation, Clarke, convinced before the investigation there were no Saddam links to al-Qaeda, issued a report that there were no Saddam links to al-Qaeda. (Thousands killed in New York and Washington by Mideast suicide bombers. Cynically, Bush suspects a link to Saddam, who funds Mideast suicide bombers. Good grief -- what a stretch! Only in the Bush administration!)
The attempt by Bush to demonize Saddam was reckless enough. More damning still, Clarke, in his book, Against All Enemies, accuses Bush of ignoring the al-Qaeda threat. Bush, says Clarke, did nothing to prevent 9/11, despite being warned in advance about 9/11 by the Clinton administration, which worked long and hard for 8 years preparing a lengthy report for Bush on the dangers of al-Qaeda. (Bush, warned in advance by the Saudis, by the Clintons, by governor Howard Dean, and still the warmongering cowboy failed to act like a warmongering cowboy!) Bush was supplied with detailed instructions, meticulously gathered over two Clinton White House terms, on how to pursue and dismantle the enemy. (Details will come out in my forth-coming book -- Click here to order now!) But it wasn't just talk. With Clinton at the helm, the enemy was pounded, hunted down, day-in-and-day-out, relentlessly. The enemy had no place to hide. Showing unflinching resolve, Clinton did everything in Monica's power to break up, dismantle, and hopefully bankrupt this horrible enemy: Microsoft. (Sadly, software outlaw Bill Gates was never captured, despite the worldwide manhunt. Today, Microsoft -- reconstituted, reinvigorated -- is stronger than ever, thanks to Bush, a soft-on-Microsoft weenie. Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism, when we have Microsoft going after all of us! He ignored it. He ignored Microsoft for years, when maybe we could have done something to stop Windows XP. Maybe. We'll never know. I think he's done a terrible job fighting Microsoft).
In his book, Clarke blasted Bush's decision to attack Iraq, a Muslim country, saying the invasion has sparked huge anti-U.S. reaction in the Muslim world. (Credible reports indicate 9/11 pre-dated the war in Iraq by 18 months, proving al-Qaeda was channeling to Miss Cleo). Invading a Muslim country unprovoked provided al-Qaeda a "recruitment device," Clarke charges. Clarke also blasted Bush's pre-9/11 decision not to invade Afghanistan, a Muslim country, with critics saying the No Invasion decision led to 9/11. The invasion of a Muslim country unprovoked would not necessarily have provided al-Qaeda a recruitment device. Attacking a non-fundamentalist Islamic country -- Iraq -- inflamed Islamic Fundamentalists, Clarke charges. Attacking a Fundamentalist Islamic country -- Afghanistan under the Taliban -- would not have inflamed Islamic Fundamentalists, critics brilliantly note.
Appearing on ABC's Good Morning America Monday, Clarke accused Bush of having "botched the response to 9/11." Rather than waste time building a global coalition, Bush "should have gone right after Afghanistan, right after bin Laden." Clarke added that Bush "made the whole war on terrorism so much worse by invading Iraq," rather than spend time building a global coalition. (While details were sketchy at press time, indications are that, after 9/11, Bush procrastinated 3 weeks on bombing Afghanistan, while rushing breakneck to war in Iraq just 68 tiny weeks later). So singularly focused was Bush on Iraq that he invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban in record time. Later, the war in Iraq did fan anti-U.S. sentiment -- among U.S. Democrats.
"Frankly," Clarke told Lesley Stahl, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know. I think he's done a terrible job on fighting terrorism." Clarke says Bush is soft on terror. Clarke also accuses Bush of alienating allies by being a warmonger on terror, rather than trying more nuance.
In his book, Clarke wrote how he was struck by Condoleezza Rice's reaction when warned in advance by Clarke about 9/11. (Yes, CONDI KNEW, TOO!) "Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term (al-Qaeda) before." (Yes, Condi spent all 8 Clinton years in a coma, just like the Clinton anti-terror team). Outrageously, despite the Cole bombing, the Embassy bombing, the Khobar bombing, the WTC bombing (the first one) and other tiny mistakes on his watch, Clarke was passed over for a promotion in the Bush administration. So he quit.
Clarke says his *going public* has nothing to do with being passed over for a promotion or being a bitter and disgruntled former employee; he has no ax to grind, no hard feelings for not being promoted despite having done such great things about terrorism; and going public has nothing to with Election-Year politics, his Kerry campaign connections or book promotion -- really! (Yes, and Andy Rooney loves Mel Gibson movies with a Passion).
Meanwhile, after weeks of gathering evidence and interviewing scores of witnesses, detectives in the Madrid bombing case may have hit pay-dirt. A new witness has reportedly stepped forward, providing agents probing the blast a key clue on the mastermind behind the March 11th railway bombings which claimed over 1,600 victims.
"A factor in the death of 200 Spaniards," asserted the powerful witness who appears to have helped crack the case, is U.S. President George W. Bush, "who dragged our troops to Iraq." By removing Saddam, who fiercely opposed al-Qaeda, Bush, chief bombing suspect, made al-Qaeda, which fiercely opposed Saddam, very, very mad. So says former '04 Democrat candidate, Howard Dean, star witness assisting the probe. As evidence, Dean cites al-Qaeda videotape claiming responsibility for the bombing, which proves Bush's responsibility for the bombing, says Dean. The voice on the tape, recovered from a trash bin shortly after the blast, says al-Qaeda, which fiercely opposed Saddam, is very, very mad at Spain for backing the U.S. removal of Saddam, who fiercely opposed al-Qaeda. Dean says this tape is proof Saddam has nothing to do with al-Qaeda.
Dean made his remarks last week during a conference call with reporters to help shore up Kerry's tough on terror credentials. The Kerry campaign swiftly disavowed Dean's remarks, claiming Dean's remarks are not the campaign's position. For now. Dean also swiftly disavowed Dean's remarks, saying the tape made him do it. "Let me be clear," said Dean in a statement to The Associated Press, "There is no justification for terrorism. Today I was simply repeating what those who have claimed responsibility for the bombings in Spain said was the reason they carried out that despicable act."
Meanwhile, as thousands of Pakistani troops battle al-Qaeda fiercely in South Waziristan, a published report indicates DNA tests are underway on a body believed to be the moribund Kerry campaign. Film at 11.
My Two Cents...
What?? First he faults Bush for building a coalition for Afghanistan then faults him not building a large enough one for Iraq. This guy is nuts!
Oh, absolutely. As a matter of fact that's not even Osama bin Laden but his twin brother. Osama was caught and killed long time ago when Clinton had the chance to do so. 911 was GW's fault, he knew about it and should've stopped it.
Condi just cited my line, maybe she reads FR.
Regarding the i42 administration and Clarke, it brings to mind FReeper Peach's tag line, paraphrasing:
"The clinton's have pardoned more terrorists than they've captured or killed."
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.