Former White House Terrorism Advisor: Bush Admin Was Discussing Bombing Iraq For 9/11

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ARogueTrader, Mar 19, 2004.

  1. FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
    Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET

    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."
     
  2. Pabst

    Pabst

    ROFL. Clarke was head of "cyber-security." Computer terror is is schtick. The notion of Clarke being labeled "the top terrorism advisor" or that he was "briefing" the "highest officials" about his specialties such as NOVIDA or Klez is laughable. I'm not saying Clarke is lying. I have no reason to suspect he is. I just find it hilarious the way the media spins one's accomplishments or status into whatever is needed to make a story seem more exciting.

    Just because I once sold a 1 lot in 1980 silver there will someday be a blurb, "tonight's guest is Pabst who single handily took on the Hunt's during their corner of the silver market and for almost a quarter century has been involved in some of the biggest markets in history."
     
  3. When the former secretary of the treasury in Bush's adminstration came out and told his story, he was attacked and the attempt to minimize him and his importance was in full force.

    Nice to see the techniques still in effect.

    Never the less, one might see a pattern.

    What would you do if Powell came out and confirmed the same?

    Would you tell us that he wasn't really one of the boys?

     
  4. Pabst

    Pabst

    Do you read or merely choose to employ RS duplicity? I made clear that Clarke could be telling the truth. Probably he is telling the truth. BUT his resume' does not match CBS's glittering press release.

    http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02021409.htm

    http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1002/100802tdpm1.htm
     
  5. Is CBS trumping him up for ratings?

    Sure thing.

    So?

    I am much more interested with the possibility that the administration took us into an unnecessary war because Georgie boy had a hard on for Saddam than what the particular position of Clarke is or was.

    If Clarke was at such a low level, and he knew of what he speaks, can you imagine what went on behind closed doors?

     
  6. look man, you're a bright guy, or at least you play one on ET...

    the whole thing was rigged.

    the important thing for you to do is to find out why, and decide if you agree with the real motivations for the war.

    basically, it comes down to whether or not you believe that the iraq offensive was a legitimate goal towards peace in the middle east. on your side, you do have ghaddafi.

    so that's +1 for you right from the start.

    what're your thoughts, fella?


    the one problem that i see, in the event that you decide that you don't think the war was a good idea, is what the retribution should be against the individuals who started this war. is it possible to hold anyone accountable?
     

  7. ...not to mention the simple, yet rather elusive fact in the mind of jq public that the administration LIED about the reason to invade.

    are you ok with your govt lying to you? maybe you think the invasion was a good thing, and that's fine, but what happens the next time the govt decides to lie to you at a cost of another $150bil?
     
  8. Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start
    Tuesday, January 13, 2004
    WASHINGTON -- President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office.

    Bush's comments came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention in a new book that the chief executive was gunning for Saddam nine months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/156352_bushsummit13.html
    :D :D :D


    And that brings up the next question: If iraq was the price since day one, how does the US go from a peaceful giant, to an invading one? :confused:
    well....look no further.... because 9/11 "provided a hell of an excuse" :(
    too much of a coincidence??? connect them dots.
    I keep on saying, the ones responsible for 9/11 may be much closer that we are led to believe......:eek:
     
  9. Pabst

    Pabst

    Only my P/L know's what an idiot I truly am. No Bung, I'm not cool with ANY admin lying about anything. Especially something as all important as war. I'm disappointed that the GOP has lost the chance to say that only Wilson, FDR, and LBJ had lied to start wars. T

    I suspected even if there were WMD's, Iraq was not an overt hostile threat. However I'm not saying I wouldn't gone after Saddam, I am saying I would have been totally honest and upfront about my reasons for doing so, and allowed Congress (after all it's their call) the proper facts.