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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (688486)6/29/2005 4:58:37 PM
From: DizzyG  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Clinton failed to capture Bin Laden when he was offered up on a silver platter.

As to this:
"He tried to kill OBL and all he knew OBL had done was two African embassy bombings. That's a lot but it's nothing close to 9-11."

Again, put down your crack pipe.

Diz-



To: American Spirit who wrote (688486)6/29/2005 5:20:56 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Why are you blaming Clinton? He tried to kill OBL : and wasting
millions and millions $ on the sea to shore missiles -- a chicken billie afraid of sending special forces to capture OBL



To: American Spirit who wrote (688486)6/29/2005 5:52:43 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
How a Lone Diplomat Compromised the Hunt for Bin Laden

BY RICHARD MINITER - Special to the NY Sun
March 28, 2005
nysun.com

WASHINGTON - A lone U.S. ambassador compromised America's hunt for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan for more than two years, The New York Sun has learned.

Ambassador Nancy Powell, America's representative in Pakistan, refused to allow the distribution in Pakistan of wanted posters, matchbooks, and other items advertising America's $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Mr. bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.

Instead, thousands of matchbooks, posters, and other material - printed at taxpayer expense and translated into Urdu, Pashto, and other local languages - remained "impounded" on American Embassy grounds from 2002 to 2004, according to Rep. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois.

While the American government was engaged in a number of "black" or covert intelligence activities to locate Al Qaeda leaders, Mr. Kirk said, the "white" or public efforts - which have succeeded in the past in leading to the capture of wanted terrorists - were effectively shut down in the months following the September 11 attacks.

Mr. Kirk discovered Ms. Powell's unusual order in January 2004 and, over the past year, launched a series of behind-the-scenes moves that culminated in a blunt conversation with President Bush aboard Air Force One, the removal of the ambassador, and congressional approval for reinvigorating the hunt for Mr. bin Laden.

The full effect of Ms. Powell's impoundment order is difficult to measure. Pakistan is a key theater in the war on terror. Virtually every Al Qaeda leader captured to date has been apprehended in Pakistan, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the planner of the September 11 attacks. More than 600 Al Qaeda fighters have been killed or captured in Pakistan since 2001.

Mr. Kirk accidentally learned of Ms. Powell's impoundment policy as part of an official congressional delegation visiting Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, in January 2004.

During the course of his visit, Mr. Kirk met with several intelligence officers to discuss the hunt for Mr. bin Laden. Mr. Kirk, a moderate Republican from the North Shore of Chicago, also serves as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserves.

Citing his experience in intelligence matters, Mr. Kirk asked embassy intelligence officials about the distribution of matchbooks in local languages. A single matchbook helped lead to the capture of Mir Amal Kansi, who gunned down several CIA employees at the front gates of the agency's Langley, Va., headquarters in 1993. Kansi was arrested in Pakistan in 1995 when a local fingered him for the $5 million reward. Mr. Kirk pointed out the similarities between the Kansi and bin Laden cases. "Both are cases gone cold in Pakistan," he said.

Embassy intelligence officials agreed with his assessment, Mr. Kirk said, but surprised the lawmaker by saying that the ambassador had ended the distribution of printed materials advertising the $25 million price on Mr. bin Laden's head.

Security personal were unhappy with the decision, according to the congressman. "There was a lot of discord among the staff," he said.

Mr. Kirk said that he raised the issue directly with the ambassador. According to the congressman, she replied that she had "six top priorities" and finding Mr. bin Laden was only one of them. She listed other priorities: securing supply lines for American and allied forces in Afghanistan, shutting down the network of nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan, preventing a nuclear war between Pakistan and India, and forestalling a radical Islamic takeover of the government of Pakistan, a key American ally.

Ms. Powell, now serving at the State Department's Foggy Bottom headquarters in Washington D.C., declined to comment directly.

A senior State Department official confirmed that the meeting between Mr. Kirk and Ms. Powell did occur and that the ambassador did review the embassy's top six priorities, but the official said that "counterterrorism was the no. 1 priority."

The senior State Department official denied that Ms. Powell had restricted the distribution of materials touting the reward for Mr. bin Laden and other "high value targets." That program - known as Rewards for Justice - was discontinued in Pakistan prior to Ms. Powell's 2002 arrival because it was "ineffective," the senior official said. At the time, the Rewards for Justice program was widely used by other American embassies farther from the center of America's operations to kill or capture key Al Qaeda leaders.

A career State Department functionary, Ms. Powell was sworn in as American ambassador to Pakistan on August 9, 2002. A fluent Urdu speaker, she had previously served in posts on the subcontinent and across sub-Saharan Africa. She joined the State Department in 1977, following a six-year stint teaching high-school social studies in Dayton, Iowa.

Returning to Washington, D.C., Mr. Kirk began working to overturn Ms. Powell's order. As member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department, he was a force with which to be reckoned. He worked methodically, far from the public eye. He met with key congressional chairmen and then, gathering support, met with the speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. In February 2004, he met with then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Then, he began raising the issue with a growing array of White House officials.

When Mr. Bush asked the congressman to join him aboard Air Force One for a campaign stop in Mr. Kirk's suburban Chicago district in July 2004, the lawmaker saw his chance. He told the president about his ambassador impounding materials that could lead to the capture of Mr. bin Laden. "Bush was very cautious," Mr. Kirk recalled. The president did not betray an immediate response. "When one of his people is concerned, he likes to take his time and investigate."

Ms. Powell left her post as American ambassador in November 2004.

State Department spokesman Noel Clay declined to comment on the timing of ambassadorial rotations.

A senior State Department official disputed the notion that Ms. Powell was removed by the White House, adding, "if the president really wants an ambassador gone, the department can move a lot faster than three months."

The former schoolteacher was replaced by veteran diplomat Ryan Crocker in November 2004. The mood at the American Embassy lifted almost immediately. "He is a take-charge guy," said one official who knows the embassy's intelligence staff, "far more aggressive in pursuing the bin Laden account."

The American Embassy in Islamabad now boasts a 24-hour call center to receive tips. The center is manned by two locals, both of whom speak the three major languages of Pakistan, and supervised by a Diplomatic Security officer. Embassy staff recently launched a 12-week radio and television campaign alerting residents that, in the words of one 30-second Urdu-language radio spot, they "may be eligible for a reward of up to $25 million for information leading to the arrest of known international terrorists." About 25 calls were received in February 2005, the center's first full month of operation.

Congress recently passed legislation raising the reward for information on Mr. bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members to $50 million and revamping the Rewards for Justice Program. More than $57 million has been paid to 43 people who provided credible information about the whereabouts of known terrorists since the program's founding in 1984. But little has been paid since the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Under legislation co-sponsored by Mr. Kirk and signed by Mr. Bush in December 2004, the top reward for information leading to the capture of Mr. bin Laden has been raised to $50 million from $25 million. The Rewards for Justice program has also been extensively retuned. Embassies are now required to conduct focus groups of locals to discover precisely which radio stations they tune in to and which newspapers they read. Based on those reports, the American Embassy in Pakistan is now broadcasting advertisements on the radio programs most closely followed by the residents of Waziristan, a mountainous region of Pakistan that is believed to be a haven for Al Qaeda.

The American Embassy in Islamabad's Rewards for Justice program is now in high gear. Yet, if Mr. Kirk and some intelligence officials are correct, valuable time was lost.



To: American Spirit who wrote (688486)6/29/2005 5:55:01 PM
From: paret  Respond to of 769667
 
We Already Know Why al Qaeda Succeeded--Clinton treated bin Laden's attacks like simple crimes.
Wall St Journal ^ | 4-13-04 | GEORGE MELLOAN

When the USS Cole was attacked in the Yemeni port of Aden on Oct. 12, 2000, President Bill Clinton responded by launching an FBI criminal investigation. One might have thought that the near-sinking of a billion-dollar American warship was an act of war. But the Clintonites treated it like, say, a 7-Eleven stickup in Little Rock.

This is particularly egregious because Osama bin Laden had declared war on the U.S. in 1996. Murderous bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in August 1998 had shown that he meant it and, with his international al Qaeda terrorist organization, could carry it out. As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said in her testimony to the 9/11 Commission last week, "The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them."

Considering the fact that the 9/11 hearings are mainly a political exercise, Ms. Rice was quite generous in saying that America's insufficient response to terrorism over the last 20 years stretched "across several administrations of both parties." She chose not to say that the most serious "insufficiencies" clearly happened during the eight years of the Clinton presidency. It won't take an encyclopedia-sized 9/11 Commission report to explain the background of that negligence.

Mr. Clinton, never a great fan of either the military or the CIA, was psychologically ill-equipped to admit that the U.S. was under attack. He preferred to think that he was dealing merely with an outbreak of criminality.

The failure to distinguish between crime and war is crucial to understanding why America ultimately became vulnerable. Over the 30 years since the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, Congress has tangled up the executive branch in legalities limiting its ability to fight a "war in the shadows." While Mr. Clinton was himself subject to these limitations, he never offered much objection, perhaps because his own party was mainly responsible for them.

An article in the April issue of Commentary is must reading for anyone seriously interested in why the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to act on information they already possessed that might have allowed them to block the 9/11 hijackers. It was written by Andrew C. McCarthy, chief prosecutor of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who masterminded the 1993 truck-bomb attack on the World Trade Center.

The political mindset that tied up the CIA and FBI in legal red tape began with the witch hunt conducted against the CIA in 1976 by a Senate committee chaired by liberal Democrat Frank Church. He was incensed that President Richard Nixon had tried to use the agency to block an FBI investigation of the Watergate scandal. Mr. Nixon was by no means the first to try to employ a federal agency for political purposes, as any close inspection of the Lyndon B. Johnson record will show. It should be noted that at that time the CIA, a key instrument for waging the Cold War against the Soviet Union, was getting a propaganda barrage from the international Left as well.

The upshot of this feverish political era was the 1978 congressional passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As Mr. McCarthy writes, "Here, for the first time, Congress and courts undertook to regulate the gathering of national intelligence, particularly by electronic eavesdropping against agents of hostile foreign powers." To conduct wiretaps, a powerful tool for counterintelligence agents, the executive branch was required to go to a special FISA court and establish "probable cause" that the target was a foreign agent.

"Previously it would have been laughable to suggest that foreign enemy operatives had a right to conduct their perfidies in privacy," writes Mr. McCarthy. "The Fourth Amendment prohibits only 'unreasonable' searches, and there is nothing unreasonable about searching or recording people who threaten national security. (The federal courts have often recognized that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.) Now, such operatives became the beneficiaries of precisely such protection."

FISA was accompanied by mass firings by Jimmy Carter's CIA director, Stansfield Turner, which further shattered agency morale. And congressional Democrats, having seized control of national security from its constitutional owner, the president, piled on more restrictions. The Boland amendments to appropriations bills attempted to prevent President Reagan from supporting the "contras" fighting a Castro-Soviet attempt to seize control of Nicaragua. When cold warriors in the Reagan White House used some injudicious methods to try to circumvent this legislation authored by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Boland, the Iran-Contra scandal erupted. Oliver North and others would have been in deeper trouble if anyone could have figured out what the Boland amendments actually proscribed.

FISA, among other things, restricted the sharing of information between the CIA and the FBI. It may have been a factor in the failure of reports of al Qaeda activities in the U.S. and abroad being correlated in time to prevent the terrorists from using airliners as bombs. FBI agents in Minnesota and Arizona had spotted suspicious activity but their reports weren't acted upon.

The argument that the CIA must have no role in domestic investigations stems from the posse comitatus principle that bars the U.S. military from domestic police work. But Mr. McCarthy points out that if the U.S. were invaded, the U.S. army would fight on U.S. soil. So why is it an infringement on posse comitatus to allow the CIA to battle foreign agents and terrorists on U.S. soil?

President Bush's creation of the Homeland Security Department and the passage of the Patriot Act by Congress have removed some of the underbrush that caused the 9/11 failure. The CIA and FBI can now legally exchange evidence and information, for one thing. A new center to receive and assess threat information has been set up. The FBI has been directed to focus on terrorism along with its regular law enforcement activities.

But of course, there are still vocal claims that the somewhat expanded powers of federal anti-terrorist agencies are a threat to civil rights. There are still congressmen who want to micromanage national security policy. U.S. voters will themselves have to decide whom they fear most, Osama bin Laden or their own government.



To: American Spirit who wrote (688486)6/29/2005 6:03:37 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities
The CIA had pictures. Why wasn’t the al-Qaida leader captured or killed?

March 16: NBC has exclusively obtained secret CIA videotape of what is believed to be Osama bin Laden a year before 9/11. Lisa Myers explores: Why didn't the United States strike?
Nightly News
Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:40 p.m. ET March 17, 2004

As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.

The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.

In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

‘It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.’

— William Arkin
NBC military analyst

Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

“It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

INTERACTIVE


• Global dragnet
Key figures and developments in the hunt for al-Qaida

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.

“We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg.

One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

Tuesday: How close the U.S. may have com to getting bin Laden?
Wednesday: What more could the Bush administration have done to get bin Laden?
Thursday: Did Bush take terrorism seriously before 9/11 or was focus too much on Saddam?

Lisa Myers is NBC’s senior investigative correspondent

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive



To: American Spirit who wrote (688486)6/29/2005 6:08:28 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden
Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001

Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,” Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy” Berger failed to act.

”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz writes.

”The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'

”As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster,” says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ijaz’s revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of Clinton to do more than talk.

Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton’s negligence: former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.

And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal Boston Globe – and even Clinton himself.

The Buck Stops Nowhere

Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan’s Bashir, fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.”

”In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.”

That’s when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.”

If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.

In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.”

This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request extradition.

"But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy at its best.”

'Purposeful Obfuscation'

Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "The O’Reilly Factor” on Wednesday night, Ijaz said, "Everything we needed to know about the terrorist networks” was in Sudan.

Newsman Bill O’Reilly asked how Clinton and Berger reacted to the deals Ijaz brokered to bring bin Laden and company to justice. "Zero. They didn’t respond at all.”

The Clintonoids won’t get away with denials, he said. "I’ve got the documentation,” including a memorandum to Berger.

"This was purposeful obfuscation,” he asserted.

O’Reilly wondered why the White House didn’t want information about the terrorists. Ijaz said that was for the American people to judge, but when pressed he suggested that Clinton might intentionally have allowed the apparently weak bin Laden to rise so he could later make a show of crushing him.

Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.”



To: American Spirit who wrote (688486)6/29/2005 6:20:51 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Blair: No Predetermination for Iraq War

By PAISLEY DODDS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; 5:14 PM

LONDON -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday the "Downing Street memos" paint a distorted picture, and he insisted that the Iraq war was not predetermined by the United States.

"People say the decision was already taken. The decision was not already taken," he said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press.

Blair added he was "a bit astonished" at the intensive U.S. media coverage about the leaked memos, which actually were leaked minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials at his Downing Street office.

According to the minutes of the meeting, Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service, said the White House viewed military action against Saddam Hussein as inevitable following the Sept. 11 attacks.

President Bush "wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," read the memo, seen by the AP. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In the interview, Blair said raising such concerns was a natural part of any examination of the cause for war.

"The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document," he said.

"It would be absolutely weird if, when the Iraq issue was on the agenda, you were not constantly raising issues, trying to work them out, get them in the right place," he said.

Details of the memos appeared in British newspapers last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the May 5 election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, the revelations raised criticism among opponents of the Bush administration.

"I am a bit astonished at how this has received such coverage in the U.S. because the fact is, after the memo was done, we went to the United Nations," Blair said.

"What people forget about that memo is that that (it) occurred nine months before the conflict. ... So whatever issues there were, we resolved them ultimately by saying we have got to give it one last chance to work peacefully."

Blair also said it was "vitally important" for coalition troops to remain in Iraq "until the job is done."

That is vitally important. If we defeat these insurgents and terrorists in Iraq _ and we'll only defeat them with the Iraqi people _ we will defeat that terrorism and insurgency worldwide."

Blair's comments came a day after Bush, in a nationally televised address, promised to keep U.S. forces in Iraq until the fight is won.

"The most important thing we can do in Iraq is concentrate on the fact ... that what is happening there is a monumental battle that affects our own security," Blair said.

"You've got every bad element in the whole of the Middle East in Iraq trying to stop that country (from getting) on its feet and (becoming) a democracy.

"The world for both of us changed after Sept. 11," Blair said. "What happened for me after Sept. 11 is that the balance of risk changed. I took the view that if these people ever got hold of nuclear, chemical or biological capability, they would probably use it."

Sept. 11 "changed the whole picture. It changed the politics of how we dealt with the threat. And I still believe in a time to come it will be seen as important that we took that decision."