Rumsfeld Urged Iraq Attack Sooner
 

Ted Bridis
Associated Press Writer

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately urged President Bush to consider bombing Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, says a former senior administration counterterrorism aide.

Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts in a forthcoming book details of a meeting the day after the terrorist attacks during which top officials considered the U.S. response. Even then, he said, they were certain that al-Qaida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaida is in Afghanistan."

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."

A spokesman for Rumsfeld said he couldn't comment immediately.

Clarke makes the assertion in a book, "Against All Enemies," that goes on sale Monday. He told CBS News he believes the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of long-standing interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein; Clarke appears Sunday night on the network's "60 Minutes" program.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and the al-Qaida attacks in the United States, Clarke said in an interview segment that CBS broadcast Friday evening. "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida."

Clarke also criticized President Bush for promoting the administration's efforts against terrorism, accusing top Bush advisers of turning a blind eye to terrorism during the first months of Bush's presidency.

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.

The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke told CBS. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5708881.story

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nation...home-headlines

:rofl:

you gotta love that line:BL:

i don't want to be accused of character assasination but Clarke isn't exactly a terrorism expert. before 9-11 he told anyone within earshot that the next big terrorism attack would be evil arab computer nerds haxoring the US's Gibson. so crappy was he at predicting terrorism that Bush quickly sent him to the useless cyberterrorism sqaud after 9-11.

g dubya bears some blame pre 9/11 granted.

you might want to read losing bin laden by richard miniter.

funny, i don't remember seeing richard clarke on 60 minutes while slick willie was prez:RE:

and have we had an Al Queda cyber attack? i think not...perhaps he wasn't so useless afterall? :hmm:

we also haven't had any Al-Queda nuke attacks either, i guess Bush wins!

stay tuned...according to Dr. Al-Zawahiri, the nuke attack is forthcoming

maybe it's not so funny.

clarke worked for reagan, bush 1, clinton and bush 2. he makes it clear clinton did all he could to prevent another us attack. specifically one against LAX airport, holding daily whitehouse briefings and keeping the cabinet, the fbi, the cia and law enforcement on "battle alert." the heightened vigilence paid off. they got the bomber at the border.

he implored the bush administration to do the same thing but the white house wasn't having it. clarke was convinced al-quaeda was planning a major attack. he told all of them. the "terrorism czar" asked for cabinet level meetings as early as jan 2001 but the whitehouse wasn't interested. he didn't get his meeting until sept 1st, ten days before 9/11.

- js.

Al-Queda spokesman are always bastions of truth and honesty :RE:

without giving specific credence to his claim, i think it's just a matter of time befoe somebody sets off a nuke. the black market nukes are out there, groups like Al Qaeda have the means to obtain them and the motive to use them, and there are lots of available targets worldwide. seems like more a question of when rather than if.

i'd have to agree, all the more reason to stick it to them as much as possible.

"And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. 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 it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, 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."

yeah, just an amazing interview last night. clarke's testifying this week too - in front of the 911 commision.

- js.