Via Josh Marshall... _____________________ People have been discussing for weeks what would be contained in the soon-to-be-released book by former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke (who served under Clinton and Bush). CBS is rolling the book on 60 Minutes this Sunday night. And here's the press release they just put out ... 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." At least among people who've followed this story closely, these facts are broadly known, at least in their outlines. Of course, hearing the details from the guy in charge of counter-terrorism at NSC sort of bumps it up a notch. I'll be curious to hear from Clarke just how far along plans for a lunge against Iraq really got. -- Josh Marshall
Next time somebody cuts me off in traffic, I'm going to throw a rock through Scottie Pippen's window.
They might have gotten away with dissing O'Neill's book since he was only the Treasury seceretary, but how are they going to spin the TERRORISM CZAR's book? This one is going to be tough to sweep under the rug...at least I hope so.
I don't expect much response from the pro-war crowd so... Rimrocker, Batman, y'all liberals are all the same. Just trying to tear down a "good Christian man". Just because he is good. You all are just like all the Muslims and Arabs who hate the USA just cause we're good and we're free and they hate goodness and freedom. That's what bad guys do, they hate the good guys cause they're the good guys Dah. Besides, Clarke is just a disgruntled ex employee, you know how they are-- just trying to get back at the boss. I remember I saw the same thing when I worked at Dairy Queen and they fired this gal. Besides the world is better off without Sadam, so what's your gripe. It is because you are not "good Christian men" that you don't care about and love the Iraqis like us compassionate conservatives do. Besides you can't prove absolutely that Bush wasn't just honestly mistaken and really believed all that stuff about wmd and Iraq- Al Qaeda connections. Didn't Rumsfeld's Pentagon intel group disagree with the CIA, FBI and counter intel guy, Clarke? President Bush is the duly elected president and he shoud be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. This is all about dirty electoral politics with you guys. Y'all are just supporting that French looking flipflopping liberal from Taxachussetts. Always the same with you fellas. Can't you just "have a nice day" and focus on March Madness or something?
Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel of Warning Bush Team on Qaeda By PHILIP SHENON WASHINGTON, March 19 — Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation — and how the new administration was slow to act. They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others. One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led. At the time of the briefings, there was extensive evidence tying Al Qaeda to the bombing in Yemen two months earlier of an American warship, the Cole, in which 17 sailors were killed. "It was very explicit," Mr. Clarke said of the warning given to the Bush administration officials. "Rice was briefed, and Hadley was briefed, and Zelikow sat in." Mr. Clarke served as Mr. Bush's counterterrorism chief in the early months of the administration, but after Sept. 11 was given a more limited portfolio as the president's cyberterrorism adviser. The sworn testimony from the high-ranking Clinton administration officials — including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and Samuel R. Berger, Mr. Clinton's national security adviser — is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday. They are expected to testify along with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who will answer for the Bush administration, as well as George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence in both administrations. While Clinton officials have offered similar accounts in the past, a new public review of how they warned Mr. Bush's aides about the need to deal quickly with the Qaeda threat could prove awkward to the White House, especially in the midst of a presidential campaign. But given the witnesses' prominence in the Clinton administration, supporters of Mr. Bush may see political motives in the testimony of some of them. The testimony could also prove uncomfortable for the commission, since Mr. Zelikow is now the executive director of the bipartisan panel. And the Clinton administration officials can expect to come under tough questioning about their own performance in office and why they did not do more to respond to the terrorist threat in the late 1990's. The White House does not dispute that intelligence briefings about the Qaeda threat occurred during the transition, and the commission has received extensive notes and other documentation from the White House and Clinton administration officials about what was discussed. What is at issue, Clinton administration officials say, is whether their Bush administration counterparts acted on the warnings, and how quickly. The Clinton administration witnesses say they will offer details of the policy recommendations they made to the incoming Bush aides, but they would not discuss those details before the hearing. "Until 9/11, counterterrorism was a very secondary issue at the Bush White House," said a senior Clinton official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Remember those first months? The White House was focused on tax cuts, not terrorism. We saw the budgets for counterterrorism programs being cut." The White House rejects any suggestion that it failed to act on the threats of Qaeda terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks. "The president and his team received briefings on the threat from Al Qaeda prior to taking office, and fighting terrorism became a top priority when this administration came into office," Sean McCormack, a White House spokesman, said. "We actively pursued the Clinton administration's policies on Al Qaeda until we could get into place a more comprehensive policy." Mr. Zelikow, the director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and a co-author of a 1995 book with Ms. Rice, has been the target of repeated criticism from some relatives of Sept. 11 victims. They have said his membership on the Bush transition team and his ties to Ms. Rice pose a serious conflict of interest for the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law-enforcement actions before the attacks. Mr. Clarke said if Mr. Zelikow left any of the White House intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 without understanding the imminent threat posed by Al Qaeda, "he was deaf." Mr. Zelikow said in an interview that he has recused himself from any part of the investigation that involves the transition, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. He said his participation in the Qaeda intelligence briefings was already well known. "The fact of what occurred in these briefings is not really disputed," he said. Ms. Rice has refused a request to testify at the hearings next week, saying it would violate White House precedent for an incumbent national security adviser to appear in public at a hearing of what the White House considers a legislative body. She has given a private interview to several members of the commission. The commission, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, was created by Congress in 2002 over the initial objections of the Bush administration. Ms. Albright and Mr. Cohen declined to be interviewed about their testimony. Mr. Berger refused to discuss details of his testimony, saying only, "I intend to talk about what we did in the Clinton administration, as well as my recommendations for the future." In the past, Mr. Berger has said that he and his staff organized the intelligence briefings in December 2000 at which Ms. Rice, Mr. Hadley and Mr. Zelikow were warned in detail about the Qaeda threat and that on his departure, he advised Ms. Rice that he believed the Bush administration would be forced to spend more time on dealing with Al Qaeda than on any other subject. In his testimony, Mr. Clarke is also expected to discuss what he believed to be the Bush administration's determination to punish Saddam Hussein for the Sept. 11 attacks even though there was no evidence to tie the Iraqi president to Al Qaeda. The issue is addressed in a new book by Mr. Clarke, and in an interview to promote the book on "60 Minutes" on CBS-TV scheduled for Sunday, Mr. Clarke said that the White House considered bombing Iraq in the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, even when it became clear that Al Qaeda was responsible. "I think they wanted to believe there was a connection, but the C.I.A. was sitting there, the F.B.I. was sitting there, saying, `We've looked at this issue for years — for years, we've looked, and there's just no connection,' " Mr. Clarke said. He recalled telling Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that "there are a lot of good targets in a lot of places, but Iraq had nothing to do" with the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House has insisted that it acted aggressively throughout 2001 on the warnings to deal with the threat from Qaeda terrorists, and that there was an exhaustive staff review throughout the spring and summer, with a proposal ready for President Bush in early September to step up the government's efforts to destroy the terrorist network. The Clinton administration witnesses may face difficult questions at the hearings about why they did not do more to deal with Qaeda immediately after the Cole attack and the discovery the previous winter that Qaeda terrorists had come close to coordinated attacks timed to the Dec. 31, 1999, festivities for the new millennium. "There was no contemplation of any military action after the millennium plots, and there should have been," said Bob Kerrey, a Democratic member of the commission and a former senator from Nebraska. "The Cole is even worse, because that was an attack on a military target," he said. "It was military against military. It was an Islamic army against our Navy. Just because you don't have a nation-state as your adversary doesn't mean you should not consider a declaration of war." The New York Times Company
Well, one reason you won't get too much response is because the "pro-war" crowd tends to get so ganged up on by the "anti-war" crowd that it gets old. The conversations move from debate to harrasment. It does go both ways. I know some conservatives on this board are equally guilty. But (and this is just my observation) when people like basso try to argue their points rationally and then get personally attacked by people like Sam Fisher it gets old and it's not fun anymore. Some of the left-leaning people on this board are fun to talk with (Green Vegan being one) but others seem to be filled with as much hate as the conservatives they claim to despise. Also, some of the left-leaning guys go on and on about how Osama is going to be found just in time for the election and have no problems accepting conspiracy theories about the right but when damning stuff comes out from the left just in time for the election you have no problems taking it at its word. It's THE TRUTH no ifs ands or buts. When the people you debate with don't even follow their own rules what's the point? Glynch, for example, has no problem citing left-leaning sources but criticizes people for using right-leaning sources. How is that fair?
Well, I do believe that's an unsolicited personal attack. Did I not play nicely with you once? basso's a big boy and can defend himself, usually by covering his ears. I take issue with his rationality, that's why it gets old. Anyway, if you're questioning the scheduling, the work of the non-partisan 9-11 commission, headed by Republican Thomas Kean, is the reason why this stuff is coming up now, as it is about to begin interviewing officials. Of course, the timing of this is due to the bush administration and the house republican leadership, who have pretty much tried to hamper the commission at every turn. So do you have any reason to believe that the Clinton foreign policy team did not focus on counterterror and didn't brief the incoming administration on it? This isn't exacly a new story, it's been around for 4 years. If you think we shouldn't believe it, then tell us why.
You completely ignored the subject of the thread to talk about how the left-leaning people gang-up on Bush supporters ---- poor you. Yet another Bush insider has come forward to support what Bush's critics have been saying for years. Lie after Lie after Lie is verified ---- Won't you even attempt to defend your president?
You may have a point, but it doesn't alter the facts; pro-war supporters may, indeed, be occassionally the subject of piling on, but there are other sides to the coin. WHen the war began it was reversed, and if you can dish it out, etc. Several of the most vehement war supporters have dissapeared since their arguments have been disproven by events, and it is possible that those who remain are partyl victimized by residual anger on the part of those who were called traitors, cowards, and Saddam-lovers merely for pointing out salient albeit inconvenenet facts prior to the event. I myself was told that my death would be a good thing on at least one occassion merely because I opposed the war, and on several others was attacked repeatedly when only posting lead news items from accorss the planet. So forgive me if my sympathy doesn't overflow. I would also point out that the 'attacks' you mention now are somewhat less personal and insulting than being assused of treason, cowardice, and loving the deaths of US soldiers, not to mention death wishes. They are, so far as I see, ususally in the way of attacks on your positions, or at most your intransigence, not your patriotism, courage, or humanity. Those attacks, if they can be so characterized, are at least in part a response to repeated failures to acknowledge facts inconsistent with the pro-war perspective, a pattern which many in hear attribute as a major factor for our being in the damn thing in the first place. An example of same might be seen in the fact that the only sinlge pro-war poster who even entered this thread again completely overlooked it's substance. Should this discussion alter from a substantive debate to a personal bash-fest, to what degree would you concede partial responsibility for same? When fact after fact is met with silence, side-stepping, or posts repeating the same old tired rhetoric which has been shown to be groundless, and often include shots at the 'lunatic liberal fringe', or question the backbone and patriotism of the posters against the war, while only ever brushing against the facts in question by means of a quick sacrastic remark or an administration slogan, who do you blame for the direction the 'debate' takes thereafter? And when the war position is argued with intelligence, if not substance, it is usually met with same, in my experience. Any comment on the substance of this thread?
as usual, the Times buried the lede. what liberal media? i'll have more later, but there's nothing new in clarke's book, except perhaps a move to cover his own ass for the inactions of the clinton's admin. Bob wooodward's book spoke about the interest by some in the admin in attacking iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. of course it was on the table. all kinds of things were. in fact, they waited 18 months, so i'm not sure what clarke's point is.
Welcome to the no spin zone! Clarke's point is that the Bush Administration did not pay any attention to the warnings regarding Al Qaeda that they received from the Clinton Administration. Any questions?
A) Elucidate on weird yet predictable immediate shot at the liberal media as a means of countering this thread, please. B) Nothing new? Possibly true, but considering that the 'facts' as he presents again confirm yet previous reports of the administration's preconceived position on Iraq as it relates to the invasion, a position which has previously been ignored and lambasted by war supporters, largely for being uncorroborated, I would think that this requires more in the way of rebuttle than 'nothing new here.' An interesting bit of rhetoric, though, I'll grant you. WItness 1:I saw the accused steal the car. Defense attorney: Are we supposed to take your word alone for that? Witness Two: I saw the accused steal the car. Defense Attorney: We've heard all this before...do you have anything of importance to add, or is this just old news? It's positions like this that make pro-war defense posts more notable for the obvious nature of their intent than for the weight of their content. C) Clarke's point is...drum roll please...that the war in Iraq was a conculsion arrived at before the facts, rather than after, and is the most obviou way of explaining why the facts themselves have been shown more and more to be contrary to the advocated war argument; they were not gathered to determine whether or not to go to war, but merely to help sell it. For many the fact that this is clear undermines the credibility of the war, and the integrity of those who gave birth to it; I understand that to you it will not and does not, and am at a loss imagining what possibly could.
Glad you're back from your hiatus, MacBeth. The level of discourse from the "defenders of the Faith" of the Bush Administration has been, overall, at a depressingly low level. Perhaps you can spur them into greater efforts. At least you're a pleasure to read.
if this is clarke's point, then perhaps he wasn't listening during all those meetings in which members of the clinton administration debated war w/ iraq as a means of enforcing existing UN resolutions. certainly, the administration had had it's collective eye on iraq since the beginning. as it should have, and as the clinton admin did as well. they clearly also intended to "get tough" with iraq, which the clinton admin should have done. 9/11 lent a new urgency to their focus. if you can't understand why that should be so, we have nothing further to discuss. the iraq war is part and parcel of the war on terror. the facts you and clarke speak of, WMD's, had been known long before the bush administration came to washington.
