SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: blue red who wrote (126920)3/22/2004 8:26:09 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
WHITE HOUSE MEMOIR: Bush quickly sought Iraqi 9/11 link
_____________

President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator says that on Sept. 12, 2001, Bush told him to 'see if Saddam did this' and bristled when told the Iraqi leader apparently had no involvement.

BY BARTON GELLMAN

Washington Post Service

WASHINGTON - On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, according to a newly published memoir, President Bush wandered alone around the Situation Room in a White House emptied by the previous day's calamitous events.

Spotting Richard A. Clarke, his counterterrorism coordinator, Bush pulled him and a small group of aides into the dark-paneled room.

''Go back over everything, everything,'' Bush said, according to Clarke's account. ``See if Saddam did this.''

''But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this,'' Clarke replied.

``I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred.''

Reminded that the CIA, FBI and White House staffs had sought and found no such link before, Clarke said, Bush spoke ''testily.'' As he left the room, Bush said a third time, ``Look into Iraq, Saddam.''

For Clarke, then in his 10th year as a top White House official, that day marked the transition from neglect to folly in the Bush administration's stewardship of war with Islamic extremists.

His account -- in Against All Enemies, which reaches bookstores today, and in interviews -- is the first detailed portrait of the Bush administration's wartime performance by a major participant. The account was sharply disputed by a high-ranking Bush advisor.

Acknowledged by foes and friends as a leading figure among career national security officials, Clarke served more than two years in the Bush White House after holding senior posts under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He resigned 13 months ago Sunday.

Although expressing points of disagreement with all four presidents, Clarke reserves by far his strongest language for George W. Bush. The president, he said, ''failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks.'' The rapid shift of focus to Saddam Hussein, Clarke writes, ``launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide.''

Among the motives for the war, Clarke argues, were the politics of the 2002 midterm election. 'The crisis was manufactured, and Bush political advisor Karl Rove was telling Republicans to `run on the war,' '' Clarke writes.

Clarke said in an interview that he was a registered Republican in the 2000 election. But the book arrives amid a campaign in which Bush asks to be judged as a wartime president, and Clarke has thrust himself among the critics.

''I'm sure I'll be criticized for lots of things, and I'm sure they'll launch their dogs on me,'' Clarke told CBS's 60 Minutes in an interview broadcast Sunday. ``But, frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for reelection on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism.''

On the same broadcast, deputy national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said, ''We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred.'' In interviews for this story, two people who were present confirmed Clarke's account.

National security advisor Condoleezza Rice, in an opinion article published in The Washington Post today, writes: ``It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq -- a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his national security council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.''

White House and Pentagon officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity described Clarke's public remarks as self-serving and politically motivated.

Like former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill, who spoke out in January, Clarke said some of Bush's leading advisors arrived in office determined to make war on Iraq. Nearly all of them, he said, believed Clinton had been ''overly obsessed with al Qaeda.'' During Bush's first week in office, Clarke asked urgently for a Cabinet-level meeting on al Qaeda. He did not get it -- or permission to brief the president directly on the threat -- for nearly eight months.

miami.com



To: blue red who wrote (126920)3/22/2004 9:49:14 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Do you honestly believe there is no evidence linking Saddam to Al Queada or Ben Laden?

Please don't make me do a google search and link dozens and dozens of stories related to this. I've done it before, I suppose I could do it again...

Your "facts" are anything but facts. They are conjecture, based on reports many of which can be disputed and argued at great length. The "fact" that you've completely closed your mind at this juncture speaks for itself.

It may take another 20 years before historians put the pieces of this puzzle together. In the meantime, we have nothing but opinions, conjecture, testimony and assumptions.

Not facts...

By the way, if Saddam was not a madman, how would you define someone who orders the murder and torture of hundreds of thousands of people. Bad men do a few things wrong, mass murderers are mad as a hatter.

The apologists for Saddam on this thread truly amaze me. Instead of celebrating that the sick waacko is sitting behind bars, you sound as if you're upset he's not ruling Iraq and thus killing more innocent people daily.

Whether historians find indisputable evidence linking Saddam with terrorists cells who caried out the attacks on America or not, the fact that he is gone and not ruling Iraq should be something every citizen of the world is grateful for.

No, you don't have to thank President Bush or the American military, but at least you could quit complaining that a *mad-tyrant* no longer rules 25 million people by fear and brutality.



To: blue red who wrote (126920)3/22/2004 11:55:10 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
Saddam was not a madman, by the way. He was a bad man, but he was quite capable of seeing his own interest, which included doing nothing that would provoke the US into an invasion. That's why he had Iraq's WMDs destroyed in the early 90's.

That has to be the obviously falsified statement I have ever seen on SI. Saddam DID provoke the US into an invasion. Even as late as January 2003, if he had given real cooperation instead of lying & trucking convoys of who-knows-what into Syria, he would have survived. Look where he is now.