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

[Endeavor]

no kidding.

[TomGuy]

Why after over two years is this fool just now coming out with this tale?

The operative phrase: in his new book

[Michael.SF.]

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

[Steven W.]

I recall the discussions were portrayed along the lines of:

BUSH: "Alright, what do you as my advisors suggest we do to get even here? I'm not going to wasting another million dollar missile on a tent in the desert and end up shooting a camel in the butt"
Special Forces Rep: "Mr. President, we can take these people out and, with time, we can even take out their eyeballs, if that's what you want"
TENET: "Mr. President, you know it does no good to go after the terrorists unless you're prepared to drain the swamp"
RUMMY: "Yes, but to drain the swamp, you have to take out Saddam because all terror roads lead through Baghdad"
BUSH: "You're both right. We'll have to take out the Taliban first. Then we'll deal with Saddam. Then we'll finish off whatever else is still left ... frankly I'm kinda partial to the 'taking out their eyeballs' guy"

[Lucky2]

A hit piece paid for by the Kerry's!

[leadpenny]

Someone posted, "Al Qaeda" as one of the first replies on one of the first Breaking News threads after the 2nd Tower was hit.

[Dolphy]

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

If he'd been looking at the issue for years then he should have seen September 11 coming. Given he didn't he has no right to be confident in his knowledge of the scope and depth of terrorism and its state sponsorship.

[mass55th]

Here's a link to a good article titled: Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation

It appears that Mr. Clarke is following the likes of Paul O'Neill. Both men appear bitter because they were dumped.

[Cheetah1]

Quote "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"

BS - Iraq and AQ are in bed together...

[txhurl]

Say, you ever heard of Salmak Pak?

[zook]

This guy is an a**hole. Of course you discuss bombing Iraq. You discuss a lot of things during a time like this. But the question is what they *did*, not what they discussed.

A**hole. Period.

[leadpenny]

Hillary probably has his FBI file.

[InterceptPoint]

For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.

How do you spell Salmon Pak?

Do you suppose that Rumsfeld knew about Salmon Pak? You bet he did. Was it a resonable assumption at the time and even now that the Salmon Pak facility was used to train airplane hijackers? Is a stretch to think that some of the 9/11 hijackers were trained at Salmon Pak. I think so. I'm betting that Rumsfeld thinks so too.

[umgud]

I don't care why we took out Iraq/Saddam. We shoulda took out Syria and Iran also (still should). Taking out the Taliban and Saddam sent a strong message to other terror supporting countries.

[adam_az]

Richard Clarke is trying to sell his book....

Would you like some sour grapes with your whine and fromage, monsieur Clarke?

[Steven W.]

Thank you ... REMEMBER SALMAN PAK!

[Donna Lee Nardo]

clarkie is a clintonite and a dem lapper

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1101540/posts

[ErnBatavia]

Did we even know that AQ was responsible the day after 9/11?

Au Contraire....if it was common knowledge to FReepers minutes after the second plane went into WTC, it was common knowledge to the gubmint.

I'm not sure how to link it up, but check my profile page for links and see the "Second Plane" thread - you'll be amazed at some of the posting times.

[adam_az]

Was he even a "terrorism" advisor? I thought he was CYBERSECURITY CZAR!!!

[cwb]

And as was just mentioned, the Bush administration never said that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. The media has continually made this leap...just as they did the "immenent" threat, which Bush never said. While WMDs may have been the main impotence for war in Iraq, there were several other reasons, including those countries that harbor and finance terrorism. For that alone, Saddam was quilty.