[FairOpinion]

And the problem with that is....????

Clarke seems to try to present that it was totally unreasonable for Bush to want to get at the facts, all of them, after 9-11.

And Clinton's State Department in 2000 (when it released the 1999 report, linked Iraq to terrorism, so why is it unreasonable for Bush to even ask the question?!

Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups.

[JennysCool]

Gee. The day after 9-11, President Bush wanted to know who did it.

Shocking, positively shocking!

[af_vet_1981]

Mr. Clarke was incredulous, he said in the book. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this," he said he responded.

Clarke is incompetent. For most of his watch the war against alQaeda was a failure. It was only when President Bush went to war that it became successful and he is trying to sabotage the country.

[ladyinred]

SO what? I believe this is in the book, Bush At War by Woodward, and he, hardly a Pubbie, didn't seem to have a problem with that. Of course he asked that, maybe because the President knows things we don't huh?

[cookcounty]

"And Clinton's State Department in 2000 (when it released the 1999 report, linked Iraq to terrorism, so why is it unreasonable for Bush to even ask the question?!

For crying out loud, Saddam publicly linked HIMSELF to terrorism, frequently boasting about the aid and help he had given them, particularly the Islamist (not secularist) suicide-bombing freaks of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

[marron]

It was entirely reasonable to ask if there were any links between Iraq and 9/11; Iraq was involved in the '93 attack on the World Trade Center, obvious enough to anyone paying attention, and it would be reasonable to ask if they had come back to finish the job.

And while the Administration claims no knowledge of links to the 9/11 attacks, at least not publicly, there are numerous connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which are publicly known to anyone paying attention. So, again, the surprise is not that Bush asked Clarke to look into it, the surprise is that Clarke was so bereft of wit as to think it odd.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Bush would have been derelict and irresponsible not to have asked.

Clarke's reaction says more about Clarke than it does about Bush. Clarke was saying on 9/12/2001, a whole day after the attacks, that because "Al Qaeda did this" it was not worth investigating any further.

Clarke was evidnetly a dangerously incompetent boob.

[KellyAdmirer]

Mr. Clarke was incredulous, he said in the book. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this," he said he responded.

I'm surprised he was just demoted then. I would have fired him outright. I wouldn't want people working for me who have closed minds who think they have all the answers before all the facts are in.

This guy is a real piece of work, a know-it-all who has more axes to grind than Paul Bunyan. But at least he is doing a service for us by keeping Kerry off the front pages

[thoughtomator]

Given that they're still trying to track down the real source of the Madrid bombings, I'd say certainty about who was responsible for 9/11, one day after the event, is not something one can reasonably demand (especially given that AQ links to several nations were already known at that time).

[bayourod]

"Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey governor who is co-chairman of the panel, said on "Fox News Sunday" that "we are still going to press and still believe unanimously as a commission that we should hear from her in public,"

His publisher (Simon & Shultzer) has told him that the publicity that would be generated by the TV coverage of Condi...'s testimony would be worth an additional $1,000,000 in sales of the book he is writing.

[Fledermaus]

I know...ridiculous. It's all a part of the DEM strategy to say "Iraq was a distraction in the war on terror" which is a complete lie.

Besides, it was CLINTON that signed the order to make REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ government policy in 1998! So Bush was just following his lead!

Face it. Democrats are nothing but worthless, lying pieces of human feces rotting under the bed of whores. And that is their good trait.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

The conversation — which the White House suggested last week had never taken place

Can anyone confirm who in the Whitehouse claimed that this conversation never occurred?

[mewzilla]

And for more on why on the president would want to explore an Iraq connection, read Appendix A from Richard Miniter's Losing Bin Laden. And see what James Woolsey has to say on the subject.

[ironman]

The one thing that really caught my attention on 60 Minutes last night was Ed Bradley stating as a matter of fact that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Condi should have blown her top when he said that. Here is Ed Bradley, national correspondent for 60 minutes, who hasn't done his homework.

Case Closed OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022083/posts