KipWellsFan Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 from The Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350060724 'Costly war' jibe irks Bush team Iraq conflict `unnecessary:' Ex-official It's 'flat-out false,' says White House WASHINGTON—The White House reacted with fury yesterday after former counterterrorism co-ordinator Richard Clarke accused the administration of ignoring the Al Qaeda threat and then, after the Sept. 11 attacks, pressuring him to find an Iraq link for the worst terrorism on U.S. soil. Bush administration officials hit back yesterday, calling his remarks in his new book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War On Terror, "irresponsible ... offensive and flat-out false," while portraying Clarke — appointed national counterterrorism co-ordinator by president Bill Clinton — as a bitter Democrat who's trying to flog his book in this election year. Clarke wrote President George W. Bush "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide." White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said dismissively: "This is Dick Clarke's American grandstand. Why did he wait till the beginning of a presidential campaign? Clearly, this is more about politics and a book promotion than it is about policy." Clarke quit his White House job a year ago. The terrorism expert, who had served under presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and the current president, added to the bombshell assertions in his book with in an interview Sunday on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes. On 60 Minutes he said it is "outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism — he ignored it." In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Clark told CBS' Lesley Stahl, "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, `I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' "Now he never said, `Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. "I said, `Mr. President. ... We have been looking at this. ... There's no connection.' "He came back at me and said, `Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. "We wrote a report." Clarke continued, "We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. ... And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the national security adviser or deputy. (It was) sent back saying, `Wrong answer. Do it again.' "Frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't — wouldn't like the answer." McClellan said yesterday Bush "doesn't have any recollection" of such a meeting or conversation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- `George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.' Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism co-ordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the book, Clarke writes of a meeting with Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who told him, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man (Osama) bin Laden. ... You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things ... not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the (Iraq) linkages, does not mean they don't exist." McClellan and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice portrayed Clarke yesterday as having quit his job after being passed over to be deputy of the new Department of Homeland Security. "I really don't know what Richard Clarke's motivations are," Rice said on CNN, "but I'll tell you this: Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction. And he chose not to." McClellan said Clarke was asked for his input on how to deal with Al Qaeda soon after Bush took office but refused to attend Rice's daily briefings. "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff," Vice-President Dick Cheney told conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. Yet Clarke said he tried to meet senior cabinet leaders to discuss the Al Qaeda threat but was rebuffed or found they were more interested in Saddam Hussein, even after Sept. 11, 2001. Clarke is one of several former Clinton administration officials scheduled to testify today and tomorrow before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks — along with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet. "While the World Trade Center was still smouldering, while they were still digging bodies out, people in the White House were thinking — ah, this gives us the opportunity to go after Iraq," Clarke told ABC TV yesterday. "They debated Iraq versus Afghanistan for a week," said Clarke, who calls the eventual Iraq invasion a serious diversion that has made the world more dangerous. "I think the administration went right up to the line and intentionally left the impression with the American people, including the soldiers who were going to fight ... that they were avenging 9/11, when Iraq had nothing to do with it." Public opinion surveys suggest a majority of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice doesn't fare well either in Clarke's book, which says she appeared never to have heard of Al Qaeda until she was warned about the group early in 2001. In a piece published yesterday in the Washington Post, Rice said the seriousness of the Al Qaeda threat was well understood by Bush, herself and other top officials but they received no new ideas from the counterterrorism team, including Clarke. the Star's wire services This has been a very intersting story for me to watch lately. And basically it's just pitting one's words against anothers. For me, with the Bush administration's many seeminlgy shady dealings, I have a hard time believing much of what they are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I don't believe the current administration on this matter. Something stinks.. and I think it's inside the gates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 his new book all i needed to see. why hasn't this guy come forward before now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Bush thinks he's a "cowboy", and he wants to clean up daddy's mess, and clear the family name. That's why he invaded Iraq, pure and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 all i needed to see. why hasn't this guy come forward before now? He's got the documentation to back up his story. Supposedly copies of memo's with the comments he claims... His book has been in the works for 11 months. The timing of the release was pushed up due to GDub's campaign direction. I've been hearing about this guy since he quit his job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I found it interesting that Joe Lieberman was one of the people to speak out against Clarke. Besides, I thought Dick Clark had a New Years Eve to prepare for??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted March 23, 2004 Author Share Posted March 23, 2004 all i needed to see. why hasn't this guy come forward before now? The same reason a guy hesitates to ask out a girl. I need more than the release date of his book to determine the legitimacy of his claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I believe this is the 3rd person from the administration saying the exact same thing. Either they are all lying in order to sell books and discussing seeing the exact same things during their time in the administration or something is rotten in Washington DC. Given the Orwellian doubletalk (see Rummy's recent appearance on 'Face the Nation' and how he lied saying that he never said Iraq was an imminent threat...one of the journalists on the show then threw it in his face showing him a quote of Rumsfeld's saying Iraq was an imminent threat. Rummy was speechless) of the current administration, I'm apt to believe the people coming out and exposing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I believe this is the 3rd person from the administration saying the exact same thing. Either they are all lying in order to sell books and discussing seeing the exact same things during their time in the administration or something is rotten in Washington DC. Given the Orwellian doubletalk (see Rummy's recent appearance on 'Face the Nation' and how he lied saying that he never said Iraq was an imminent threat...one of the journalists on the show then threw it in his face showing him a quote of Rumsfeld's saying Iraq was an imminent threat. Rummy was speechless) of the current administration, I'm apt to believe the people coming out and exposing it. One thing that I certainly will agree with is that Rumsfeld is completely off his rocker. That guy has gone off half cocked more then once in a lot of ways... some of the quotes before the war and during it, just absolutely left me speechless. At least when GW doublespeaks, he leaves himself wiggleroom. Rummy isn't that bright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Everytime the AP reports on that they keep calling him "Dick CLarke". And all I can picture is New Year's Rockin Eve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 all i needed to see. why hasn't this guy come forward before now? There was no motive behind the release date of his book. Why? Because it was the WHITE HOUSE that determined when this book could come out. With any former staff member that has high-security clearance, that is a waiting period for anything they wish to publish. The White House is given an advance copy of the material to chack it for any potential leaks of national security issues that cannot be made public. When the White House declares the material safe to publish...it gets published. Clarke finished this book last year and the White House had it since late summer. They are allowing him to release it now... Then the White House claims it's a political move on Clarke's part releasing it now, hoping the public doesn't know about this policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.