Posted on 07/24/2004 9:28:56 AM PDT by tomball
9-11 report says counterterror czar believed Saddam offered asylum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Clarke Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke insisted to media during the spring 9-11 commission hearings that Saddam Hussein had no connection to al-Qaida, but the panel's final report says that in February 1999 he feared Osama bin Laden might flee to Baghdad.
The report, on page 134 [Requires PDF viewer], says Clarke was nervous about a U-2 surveillance mission over Afghan tribal areas proposed by the CIA, because "he continued to fear" that bin Laden might "leave for someplace less accessible."
Clarke wrote to Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick, according to the 9-11 report, that "one reliable source reported [bin Laden's] having met with Iraqi officials, who 'may have offered him asylum.'"
Other intelligence sources, the 9-11 report continues, said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged bin Laden to go to Iraq.
If bin Laden actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him.
It would be better, Clarke declared, to get bin Laden in Afghanistan.
The 9-11 report says former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, now the subject of a federal probe for allegedly pilfering top-secret documents, suggested sending one U-2 flight, "but Clarke opposed even this."
It would require Pakistani approval, Clarke wrote, and Pakistan's intelligence service is "in bed with" bin Laden and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign.
"Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," Clarke wrote.
The 9-11 report says: "Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the [National Security Council] staff that Saddam wanted bin Laden in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight."
The CIA was able to find other ways to get its information, so the U-2 flight never occurred, the report says.
WorldNetDaily reported yesterday that Berger blocked four separate plans of action against the al-Qaida terrorist network from 1998 to 2000, according to the 9-11 commission report.
As WND reported, in a March interview with Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes," Clarke denied Saddam had any connection to al-Qaida.
Stahl pressed Clarke further, asking, "Was Iraq supporting al-Qaida?"
Clarke replied: "There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida ever."
In 1999, however, he defended President Clinton's attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant by revealing the U.S. was "sure" it manufactured chemical warfare materials produced by Iraqi experts in cooperation with bin Laden.
Clarke told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999, story U.S. intelligence officials had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, which was hit with Tomahawk cruise missiles in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Africa.
The sample contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, which Clarke said when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke told the Post the U.S. did not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it.
"But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan," the paper reported.
I thought there was not connection between the two?
Clarke replied: "There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida ever."
Notice the Clintonesque answer. The answer is not "Yes" or "No," followed by explanation. The answer evades the question. Why are reporters so chicken-sh*t in their questioning?
Bottom line he is a liar...end of story.
US (Clinton) feared Iraq had given (chemical) arms to Sudan (arrangement w Al Qaeda)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1177585/posts
President Bill Clinton thought Iraq might have provided chemical weapons to Sudan in the late 1990s under a co-operative arrangement between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, the investigation into the September 11 attacks revealed.
Mr Clinton ordered an air strike in August 1998 against the al-Shifa chemical plant in Sudan after officials in the office of Richard Clarke, then White House director of counter-terrorism, concluded that Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, had access to deadly VX nerve gas allegedly being produced at the plant.
Mr Clarke later said traces of a precursor chemical for VX detected near the plant were "the exact formula used by Iraq" and speculated that Iraq was helping al-Qaeda acquire such weapons.
The report says that in 1998 Iraq sought closer ties with Mr bin Laden and even offered him a safe haven.
I saw John Lehman on Fox and he said that Clark was very forthright during closed door interviews but went very one sided in front of the camera.
I'm still wondering if he was bitter at Condi or Bush for not promoting him or did he set this up with the book publisher for the big payday?
Something is really wierd because as we see here his story is not flattering toward Clinton and he had to know it would be included in the report.
Both!
His ego was hurt and he wanted revenge.
His wallet was thin and he wanted to fatten it.
Clarke is an opportunist of the first order.
FYI Ping
Clarke, like Joe Wilson, is seeing his credibility factor go down the toilet.
Those who purchased his book (Wilson's and/or Clarke's) should return it and demand a refund due to its misrepresentation. Both books should have been categorized as fiction.
No, it wasn't Clintonesque. He directly answered that question by saying there is no evidence. And he directly lied HAO.
Hmmmmmm, was the unsaid subtext "because Sandy's taken care of the evidence"?
How did they get Clarke to turn. Put me down with others guessing blackmail. He looks creepy enough to be involved in blackmailable activities.
I really despise these people. Berger, Clarke, Wilson...all of them.
probably money. The original draft of his book was probably too even-handed. After the publisher's convinced how to make it much more appealing, he got the 60 Minutes / Today Show buildup. Selling one's soul to the devil.
Defenders of Hitler could say the same thing. There is no actual evidence that Hitler ordered the destruction of the Jews and Gypsies. There is no smoking gun document of Hitler ever telling his flunkies to go out and kill all the "subhumans". However we're fairly sure that Hitler had a hand in the holocaust. Where libs are whining that we didn't connect the dots with 9/11, they now refuse to look at the dots connecting Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
These people were running this country. God help us all!
Stating there is no evidence is not saying "No." It's saying there's no evidence. The ex-First Beotch uses the same technique to deflect questions.
I wish to God this administration would finally catch and convict and punish the crooks that preceded it.
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.