RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events "It's not about oil or Iraq..."

Quote:

---

Bush Accused of Ignoring Al Qaeda Until After 9/11

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush ignored the threat of al Qaeda for months and did too little to stop the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, a former administration counterterrorism official said Sunday.

Richard Clarke's accusations, aired in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview, drew a detailed point-by-point rebuttal from the White House as it attempted to defend Bush's standing as a presidential candidate who is tough on terrorism.

In the program on his book to be launched Monday, Clarke charged that Bush had done "a terrible job" in addressing the threat from terrorism.

"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.

"I think the way he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11, has made us less safe," said Clarke, who was Bush's top counterterrorism expert until he resigned in February 2003 after serving in every U.S. government since the Reagan administration.

In an unusually detailed statement seeking to debunk what it labeled "myths" from Clarke's book, the White House denied the assertion that Bush did not treat al Qaeda as a serious threat before it attacked the United States.

"The president specifically recognized the threat posed by al Qaeda and immediately after taking office the White House began work on a comprehensive new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda," the White House said.

"The president specifically told (national security adviser) Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al Qaeda, rather than simply waiting to respond."

Rice defended the administration's response to the terrorism threat in a Washington Post op-ed column Monday, saying that through the spring and summer of 2001, Bush's national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda.

"This became the first major foreign-policy strategy document of the Bush administration -- not Iraq (news - web sites), not the ABM Treaty, but eliminating al Qaeda," Rice said.

Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board before resigning, is set to testify this week before the independent commission investigating the 2001 hijacked airplane attacks in New York and on the Pentagon (news - web sites) that killed some 3,000 people.

The White House rebutted Clarke's charge that before the Sept. 11 attacks the administration was focused on Iraq rather than on al Qaeda and that immediately after the attacks it searched for a way to blame Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

Clarke said Bush took him aside the day after the 9/11 attacks and ordered him to "see if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

Clarke said he responded that al Qaeda was responsible and that Iraq was not linked to the attacks. However, he agreed to look into Bush's request and again found no cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley disputed Clarke's characterization of the president's request.

"The point, I think, is that of course the president was trying to find out who caused 9/11. ... And he couldn't rule out the possibility that it might have been Iraq, and he asked for the intelligence that we had on a possible link between Iraq and 9/11," Hadley told "60 Minutes."

Clarke also said the day after the Sept. 11 attacks, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested bombing Iraq, despite the lack of any evidence of Baghdad's involvement.

When told al Qaeda's bases were in Afghanistan (news - web sites), not Iraq, Clarke said Rumsfeld responded that there were no good bombing targets in Afghanistan, but there were plenty of such targets in Iraq. Clarke said he thought at first that Rumsfeld was joking, but quickly realized that he was serious.

Among other claims in Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," is that the Bush administration ignored intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible terror attacks, according to CBS.

---

Funny how the "liberals" all all out to "get' Bush. When his own people expose his bullshit, there is an equally ridiculous explanation in order for you guys to happily stick your heads back in the sand with no apologies.

First Paul O'Neil and now the Bush Terrorism Expert.
Both Bush Executive Branch insiders.Then there's Hans Blix, Joe Wilson, and Kay on no WMD's.

It's only March and already the Bush facade
is cracking. Ha Ha

Of course none of what he's saying is new. Still, it is certainly gratifying to have another highly qualified insider calling you Bush fellaters on your bullshit.

The Man who knew

The Secret History

Oh.... Are the Bushes assholes? Pretty much. 500+ dead for a lie.

I know I know, the dream of a WASP Christian1950's-like utopia/theocracy is now really in jeapordy.

I'm guessing G-Man is eagerly awaiting Hannity's talking points who undoubtedly is in a war room meeting with fellow propagandists as I type to find something, ANYTHING to smear Clarke, to deflect attention from what he's saying and shut him up!!! But.....

As the former head counter-terrorism honcho, Clarke knows what and what did not happen and how politics dictated the U.S. response prior to and after 9/11.

He's not disgruntled - he will be portrayed as such.

He's not illogical - they (the current administration) will say his facts are incorrect.

He's not political - they will say he's out to help Kerry win the presidential election.

This man is one more in a string waiting on the sidelines to tell what really has been going on in the past several years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This refreshing inside look is good for all of us because we see more than just the point-counterpoint garbage on television.

O'Neal and now Clarke understand that loyalty to what is best for the nation is more important than loyalty to the commander-in-chief (and to his lies)-- especially one that is an incompetent scoundrel! When will some of us do the same?

Incidentally, Clarke Is testifying under oath this week. That's more than Bush or his lying bunch of thugs have done. For if you testify under oath, they can come after your lying ass later when the truth is revealed and prosecute your lying scumbag ass.

Clarke has done more for his country tonight than Bush has done in three years.