Remember When O'Neill Was Lying About Administration Focus on Iraq?

[Frogm4n]

Well now Clarke's lying as well!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash60.htm



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."

Developing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course this is from drudge so chances of it being real are 1 in 5.

[GRUNHERZ]

I'm sorry but Al Qaeda did not have anything to do with 911, it was CIA plot.

[Frogm4n]

What are you talking about grun? Did you even read the article? Or are you just spouting fringe nonsence again.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
What are you talking about grun? Did you even read the article? Or are you just spouting fringe nonsence again.

LOL

I read the article.  Would you not expect that on 911 and the days right around you would want to explore every possibility of who did it and discuss options? Wouldnt you want us not to ignore any option of who it was? Wasnt that big criticism about Spain just now? Certainly Saddam could have been stupid enough to try something like that, and he had to be considered. Second lets not forget we were openly invading afghanistan within a few weeks of 911, and I'm betting we had special forces there in a few days after the attack. The decision of who was at fault and who needed to be attacked first was obviously madede quickly and it was decided to do afghanistan and bin laden. So whatever other ideas were discussed around 911 it seems rather obvious they were not a distraction from the hunt for Al Qaeda and the attack on Afghanistan right after 911.

[Frogm4n]

'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],'"

Did you ignore this part of it?

[GRUNHERZ]

When was Afganistan attacked? When was Iraq attacked?

One was invaded in early October 2001.

The other was invaded in late March of 2003.

Can you match the dates and the country invaded?  Whatever they discussed, its obvious what they quickly decided on was more important, that much is obvious as we were invading afganistan withing a few weeks of 911.

[Frogm4n]

Your missing the point that they wanted to go after iraq because of 9/11 knowing that iraq had nothing to do with it. Then again your part of the crowd that believed we should have invaded iraq 5+ years ago; so what do you care that the admin. had a policy of nation building brewing even though they said they would not during the election of 2k.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Your missing the point that they wanted to go after iraq because of 9/11 knowing that iraq had nothing to do with it. Then again your part of the crowd that believed we should have invaded iraq 5+ years ago; so what do you care that the admin. had a policy of nation building brewing even though they said they would not during the election of 2k.

But when did it become clear that Al Qaeda did it? Now honestly its obvious that they did it. But if you are going to start a war you better be convinced who you are after. What I think happend during those meetings is thast people considered different otions of who migh be guilty and people argued different viewpoints and that there were disagreements,  and thats whats being reported by this article - thats my take on it from an organizational decision making point of view. I'm surprised that now you are the one arguing that other options not be considered wrt to war decisions and that we just rush in...

However, its obvious and totaly unambiguous that they quickly decided that Afghanistan was the real target wrt 911 - whatever discussions took place had no real impact in delaying that decision.

[Eagler]

so what?

I know you were a saddam groupie frogface, but he is gone, get over it

I don't know what we are waiting for, we should be in Iran by now. See,, we waited too long and darn libya waved the white nuke flag before we could carry out military exercises in his palaces ... get on with it, let's replace every turban with a cowboy hat, the sooner the better. when the draft you frog, you can request cook or latrine duty, something safe and away from the fightin

[Rino]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Your missing the point that they wanted to go after iraq because of 9/11 knowing that iraq had nothing to do with it. Then again your part of the crowd that believed we should have invaded iraq 5+ years ago; so what do you care that the admin. had a policy of nation building brewing even though they said they would not during the election of 2k.

     I think you need to loosen your turban a touch.

[Sandman]

Go re-read some of the transcripts from the Bush/Gore debates.

Dubya had a hard-on for Saddam well before 911.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Go re-read some of the transcripts from the Bush/Gore debates.
Dubya had a hard-on for Saddam well before 911.

Do you disagree with that?  And if so is it partisan? Did yiu criticize Clinton his countless attacks on Iraq, both with bombs and sanctions, and the cruse missle strikes, the no fly zones and politics and everything else?

Perhaps I'm misreading you but it almost seems as if you want to make it seem that Bush uniquely introduced the Iraq problem into US politics for his own particular and perhaps sinister reasons and you seem to discount the fact that Iraq and its WMD issue was a central part of US policy throughout the 1990s.

[Sandman]

No question, Grun. Iraq was a problem. Bush decided it was a "front-burner" problem.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No question, Grun. Iraq was a problem. Bush decided it was a "front-burner" problem.

Is that such a bad thing? I guess I'm asking is what would have been the benefit of letting it drag on indefintely..

[Sandman]

Too soon to tell. The grand notions of "democratizing" the region and all...

Let's just say I'm not optimistic and leave it at that.