[Lerkfish]

speaking of contradictions

President Asked Aide to Explore Iraq Link to 9/11
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: March 29, 2004



WASHINGTON, March 28 � The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush asked his top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved.

Mr. Bush wanted to know "did Iraq have anything to do with this? Were they complicit in it?" Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, recounted in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes."

Mr. Bush was not trying to intimidate anyone to "produce information," she said. Rather, given the United States' "actively hostile relationship" with Iraq at the time, he was asking Mr. Clarke "a perfectly logical question," Ms. Rice said.

The conversation � which the White House suggested last week had never taken place � centers on perhaps the most volatile charge Mr. Clarke has made public in recent days: that the Bush White House became fixated on Iraq and Saddam Hussein at the expense of focusing on Al Qaeda.

In his new book, "Against All Enemies," Mr. Clarke recounts that the president pulled him and several other aides into the White House Situation Room on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, and instructed them "to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

Mr. Clarke was incredulous, he said in the book. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this," he said he responded.

Mr. Bush answered: "I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred," according to Mr. Clarke's account. Mr. Clarke added in later interviews that he felt he was being intimidated to find a link between the attacks and Iraq.

Last week, the White House said it had no record that Mr. Bush had even been in the Situation Room that day and said the president had no recollection of such a conversation. Although administration officials stopped short of denying the account, they used it to cast doubt on Mr. Clarke's credibility as they sought to debunk the charge that the administration played down the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks and worried instead about Iraq.
.

now isn't THAT interesting...hmmm??

[zachs]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
speaking of contradictions

now isn't THAT interesting...hmmm??

There's also a good article from the Washington Post about Condoleezza Rice's contradictions with other WH officials.

[ghost_flash]

Nice sources.
Give me an id and password to read the whole story, not that those two rags aren't biased enough...

What is really beautiful?

Your witch hunt will amount to winning the election for Bush and sending Kerry back to *his* hole.

Enjoy your little thread, of pat the back of the loser in the other threads...
Y'all gonna hug and have a good cry? Can I watch?

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Nice sources.
Give me an id and password to read the whole story, not that those two rags aren't biased enough...

What is really beautiful?

Your witch hunt will amount to winning the election for Bush and sending Kerry back to *his* hole.

Enjoy your little thread, of pat the back of the loser in the other threads...
Y'all gonna hug and have a good cry? Can I watch?

Registration is for nytimes.com free, FYI.

Yes, we'll be crying...crying with joy in November, when Bush is sent on a one-way trip to Crawford, Texas.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Nice sources.
Give me an id and password to read the whole story, not that those two rags aren't biased enough...

What is really beautiful?

Your witch hunt will amount to winning the election for Bush and sending Kerry back to *his* hole.

Enjoy your little thread, of pat the back of the loser in the other threads...
Y'all gonna hug and have a good cry? Can I watch?

name macnn
pass macnn

(for the NYT story)

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Registration is for nytimes.com free, FYI.

Yes, we'll be crying...crying with joy in November, when Bush is sent on a one-way trip to Crawford, Texas.

The thing is. I know that, but I'm not about to bother entering any information for that rag, or any other of it's ilk.

Laugh it up while you can, it will make your candidate's loss even more sweet!

Lata' losers.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
The thing is. I know that, but I'm not about to bother entering any information for that rag, or any other of it's ilk.

Laugh it up while you can, it will make your candidate's loss even more sweet!

Lata' losers.

This is a curious response to the administration changing their story.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
The thing is. I know that, but I'm not about to bother entering any information for that rag, or any other of it's ilk.

Laugh it up while you can, it will make your candidate's loss even more sweet!

Lata' losers.

I laugh every time I see the latest round of polls. 'Cuz every time, Bush's support drops a few more percentage points.

You may as well start referring to Kerry as "President Kerry". It's gonna happen in November anyway, why not start now.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
This is a curious response to the administration changing their story.

What's more funny? The fact that, what you read was a response to someone other than you not related to what you just wrote... Can you read? Or, wait. You confused again?

There is one final possibility. You are also Zachs. :/

You are both about the same as far as elitest, snobbish, and contemptuous personality is concerned so I would have to say you are two different but very similar people. Scary.

Again.
Lata'

[zachs]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
This is a curious response to the administration changing their story.

Silly. That would mean he'd have to actually acknowledge that the Bush administration did something wrong.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
What's more funny? The fact that, what you read was a response to someone other than you not related to what you just wrote... Can you read? Or, wait. You confused again?

There is one final possibility. You are also Zachs. :/

You are both about the same as far as elitest, snobbish, and contemptuous personality is concerned so I would have to say you are two different but very similar people. Scary.

Again.
Lata'

How 'bout I quote you:

Sheesh. It is obvious you have nothing to say on topic!\\

I guess you acknowledge that they changed their story.
Thanks for clarifying.

[hyteckit]

[rice]What you talking about fool?[/rice]

[zachs]

Heh. I love Condoleezza Rice's assertion that she shouldn't testify because "It is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress." Here's a hint, Condi: the 9/11 commission isn't a Congressional committee! Nor is any member of the commission a member of Congress.

Sheesh.

[zachs]

More from our good friend, Condo-lie-zza Rice:

Pre-9/11 Intelligence

CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high�we were at battle stations." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: _9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04

FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

Richard Clarke's Concerns

CLAIM: "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." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." � 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04

Response to 9/11

CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02_that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]

Iraq and WMD

CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04

FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." � National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]

[Demonhood]

please keep replies focused on the topic at hand, not on your personal feelings about other members.

ignoring an argument while attacking the messenger is neither effective, nor mature.

[cpt kangarooski]

the White House suggested last week had never taken place

Holy crap! I'm pretty sure that last week did indeed take place. But what if they're right!?

[Nonsuch]

Not to worry, Bushies ... soon the CIA will pitch in and help out with the administration's smear work:

From MSNBC:
U.S. officials told NBC News that the full record of Clarke�s testimony two years ago would not be declassified. They said that at the request of the White House, however, the CIA was going through the transcript to see what could be declassified, with an eye toward pointing out contradictions. [my emphasis]

Why not just fold the CIA into Bush's reelection campaign and be done with it?

[BRussell]

I thought this was a good entry by Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum. He asks why they didn't just admit to Clarke's claims.

Take a look at Clarke's two major charges:

1. The Bushies didn't take terrorism seriously enough when they first took office.

2. After 9/11, they were too obsessed with Iraq, which has been a distraction from the war on terror.

Why the furious barrage of personal smears and frenzied counterattacks? Why not just tell the truth?

1. In retrospect, of course we wish we had paid more attention to terrorism. Everybody in the U.S. government does. After all, 3000 people died. It was a terrible misjudgment and a wakeup call for all of us. (I'm sure they could figure out a better way to say it, but you get the idea.)

2. Yes, we did focus on Iraq, and for good reasons. (Proceed to give reasons, which hopefully they can do by now without a second thought.)

Would anyone have held it against them if they admitted that they, like everyone else, underestimated terrorism prior to 9/11? I don't think so. And the Iraq war as a response to terrorism is a longstanding policy dispute. Surely they could just acknowledge it and then lay out the usual arguments.

I think this is right on, and I've said this from the beginning about Clarke's statements. Everyone already knows they're true. Obviously they didn't take terrorism seriously enough pre 9/11, and obviously they went to war with Iraq post 9/11. Where's the big controversy?