FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE...

DRUDGE ^ | 3/19/04 | Drudge

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

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

[Eva]

Like I said before, if there is any truth to Clarke's accusations he will be arrested for discussing top secret meetings. On the other hand, if what he says are lies, the Bush administration will not be able to refute the lies for the same reason.

[Big Horn]

If you want to get rid of rats you hit them in their nest.

[StriperSniper]

in her mid-30's

Me too, and I remember the SCUDs going into Israel. I watched a bunch of them on CNN from a bar on Broadway and Battery Place, right behind the bull. And how can anyone that age not remember 'Cut it off and kill it' Powell and Storming Norman?!?!

Scary

[alnick]

He was referring to the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection in general terms.

Read my home page.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE...

Is this supposed to be some sort of scandal? This doesn't bother me in the slightest. BTW, what do they know about an al-Qaeda/Iraq connection that they can't tell us? Obviously, the connection was made pretty quick. Too bad it's classified, meanwhile the Bush admin has to listen to the garbage coming out of the news agencies and can't say anything back. The press really sucks.

[alnick]

Beginning in January 2001, president bush was commander in chief. Based on the intel gathered by the CIA, NSA, etc, there was the same clear danger, yet no action was taken to weaken or eliminate the el-kida terrorist group. I don't understand this.

It took a few months to put something together, but Rice had the plan to take out the Taliban and AQ on President Bush's desk on 9/10/01. Bush acted, but he had only eight months and that wasn't enough time to get past planning stages.

[metesky]

Clarke, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book, "Against All Enemies."

Cashin' in...

[txrangerette]

No, I just recall reading about it
sometime after 9-11, in an article
somewhere. Might also have heard
Condi Rice reference it.

Maybe Woodward's book "Bush at
War" would cover it.

Also remember that in less than
two months the 9-11 Commission
will release their report. Papers
from the WH have been shown them,
& Condi, the Pres. & other admin.
members have or will talk to them.

That is bound to be covered.

But plenty of scum are out to
destroy this President.

[GraniteStateConservative]

No, 2001. That's the point. We apparently were very close to really going after OBL before 9/11 happened.

[visualops]

And AppyPappy's comment #30:

How long before the liberals start telling us we need to understand their rage

[mrsmith]

www.janes.com
15 March 2001
"India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
...Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban.
Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. "

This came out only two months after Bush took office. Six months before the attack.
It doesn't say a whole lot about what Bush was doing but given the secrecy that would be involved I'm surprised even this much was reported.

[alnick]

Here's a link to the story about the plans to go after Al Qaeda being on Bush's desk just before 9/11.

[BenLurkin]

Yes, it was known in 2001 that Iraq was at the time a major sponsor of terrorism.

[txrangerette]

Thanks!

[muawiyah]

If Mr. Clarke was such a knowledgeable and profound "terrorism adviser" why was it the airplanes smacked into the WTC?

This guy's just covering up his own failures.

[Mo1]

Clarke, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book

He served under 4 Presidents and this is the only thing he writes about ???

Doesn't pass the smell test

[arasina]

MATT DRUDGE IS A JERK for giving the author all this publicity. He found an asteroid more important than the High Value Target in Pakistan yesterday. He fell for the Kerry bimbo eruption. He hasn't had a major scoop since Monica Lewinski. He's in love with coverage of Hollyweird. I don't care if he's Ann Coulter's best friend. He's a schmuck.

The author is no different than Paul O'Neill. He's a bitter leftist and wants to make money off his book. I suggest people read Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" instead.

[arasina]

If Mr. Clarke was such a knowledgeable and profound "terrorism adviser" why was it the airplanes smacked into the WTC?

From the link at Post #28 on this thread:

In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.

September 11 spoiled the fun, though, and electronic attack was shoved onto the back-burner in favor of special operations men calling in B-52 precision air strikes on Taliban losers. One-hundred fifty-thousand U.S. soldiers on station outside Iraq make it perfectly clear that cyberspace is only a trivial distraction.

Saddam will not be brought down by people stealing his e-mail or his generals being spammed with exhortations to surrender.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

He hasn't had a major scoop since Monica Lewinski.

KERRY CALLED SECRET SERVICE
AGENT 'SON OF A B*TCH' AFTER SLOPE SPILL

[arasina]

That's a scoop? Hardly.