Clarke: Bush's Saddam-Obsession Delayed Iraq Attack

(2004-03-22) -- A new book by Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism coordinator for the Bush administration, charges that the president was so obsessed with Saddam Hussein that he delayed invading Iraq for 19 months after the 9/11 terror attacks "just so he could let his hatred of Saddam simmer in his mind."

Mr. Clarke told CBS reporter Leslie Stahl that, from the beginning, the Bush administration didn't take the al Qaeda threat seriously and was focused on attacking Iraq.

"The 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda were such an utter surprise to [National Security Advisor] Rice and [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld, that it took them almost a month to retaliate against the Taliban," said Mr. Clarke. "By contrast, Rumsfeld started planning to hit Saddam from the moment he took office in January 2001. Sure enough, only 26 months after that he unleashed a lightning strike on Iraq. He would have launched the attack sooner if Bush hadn't been so obsessed with Saddam that he couldn't see straight."

The former official said even the war against the Taliban was part of the president's obsession with Saddam Hussein.

"Bush foolishly believed that there was a link between al Qaeda and Iraq," Mr. Clarke said. "So, in order to bring down Saddam Hussein, he first attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan in October 2001, because they harbored al Qaeda. Bush thought that if the Taliban fell, Saddam would soon follow. It's clear that Rumsfeld and Rice have thought about nothing but Iraq for more than three years now."

Harry, please note > lol

He's a leftover from "Get a blow job in the oval office Clinton.
Most of what he claims is bullshit and undocumented.
He is just trying to sell his book.
If the anyone of Clintons kroneys were in office instead of Bush, Saddam Hussien would still be dictating in Iraq and Quadafi would not have agreed to dispose of his Weapons of Mass distruction.

He's served in many administrations (mostly Republican) and has followed his conscience in revealing the truth and righting a wrong which all Americans need to know about (before they repeat the mistake they made 4 years ago).

I stand in awe of him and his courage and dedication to this country.

And yes this has nothing to do with the hobby because it's infinitely  more important.

All say the same thing about the Bush Regime and it's Iraq focus.

Then Bush claims everyone is lying, except Bush.

BTW, Richard Clarke is a REGISTERED Republican and voted for Bush in 2000!

TET

All of a sudden, Richard Clarke appears on 60 Minutes and a plethora of talk shows trashing Bush at every opportunity.  The timing of all this is suspect, and the apparent coordinated nature of Clarke's attacks on Bush just reeks of sour grapes concerning his downgraded position in the Bush White House.  Indeed, one gets the feeling that his judgment is biased, and that his accusations may not be very truthful or astute.

Thank you! That needed to be said. If I want to read about that crap, there are plenty of other places to do it, on line or off.

Clarke's timing is NOT suspect. He gave the manuscript to the administration, as required of all officials who write a book when his employers are still in office, back in November, and they apparently never bothered reading it until it was announced he was going to appear on 60 Minutes. Clarke has also stated on national television that he will not serve in a Kerry administration, so the idea that he's auditioning to get his job back doesn't hold water either. Before anyone attacks me, let me say that I'm writing this as a disillusioned Republican who voted for Ronald Reagan, and both George Bushes. But only once.

Many people don't know that the real source of  al Qaeda funding is the African Offical Scam (you have got the email).   These scams are regulated by the Catholic Church  and a special committee in the UN.  Anybody that tries to usurp the scam without permission is attacked by men in black riding in sllenced helocopters.  These people are controlled by Agnus Dei and the CFR (the true world leaders).  Mr Cheney, the real leader of the US, had directed Bush and the Sec of Def to use the scheme to raise cash to shore up Halloburton's profits.  

Mr Clark, who did not know what was going on, saw the increased activity between  al Qaeda, the UN, and Cardnal Cushing and concluded (incorrectly) that it was a threat from al Qaeda and not simply an attempt to deal with a business dispute.  

Bush was very upset by the way it was resolved.  Both of his daughters were part of the Men In Black (Woman's Division) and had to dress in drag, darken their skin with makeup, and capture and fly planes into the world trade center.  They were the only two members of the crew that were able to parachute out of the planes and who survived.  This is easy to see in the video tape that was taken of the crashes (although it was quickly censored by the government).  You can tell however by blowing up the tape and looking at the windshields of the airplanes as they are about to crash.  NOBODY IS AT THE CONTROLS.    

I'm always happy to help explain things to everybody here... Harry

Nobody is attacking you.  Let's just say that we'll agree to disagree.

The problem is that Bush gave the book to his daughters to read.  They couldn't find the movie at blockbuster so they rented Britney's movie, got the clerk to score them some bud and brewskies and got fucked up just like good ole pops.  


They reported to Daddy that the book was about Clarke going on some road trip.  Bush recalled something about some Clarke expedition and thought it had to do with history - he never liked (or attended) history in high school.

Or is the 'October Surprise' copyrighted by Karl Rove?

Harry, there might be a place for you at Scrappleface!  Nice job.

There is a REASON that this forum has been the venue for some pretty spirited discussions on the subject of politics.  And that is because the audience here has already self-selected a willingness to disregard the legal authorities when we recognize that these authorities are self-serving and do not support out interest.

Clark worked for:
Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II

And you tie him only to Clinton?

Jesus, you right-wing dicks get dumber all the time.

But he was disgusted by his view that the Bush Administration was so focused on Iraq and Saddam that they completely underestimated the urgency of the Al Qaida threat.  I will acknowledge that part of his frustration and anger was that he was demoted.  BUT, he was not demoted to serve under someone ELSE with counter-terrorism authority, RATHER, the entire counter-terrorism effort was demoted and de-emphasized under Bush prior to 9-11.  THAT's why he is so angry - because he sees this President campaigning on the strong stand he took against terrorism, when in fact, the entire function of counter-terrorism was de-emphasized in the Bush Administration prior to 9-11.

-- Modified on 3/24/2004 12:36:20 PM

He was the first member of the Command Structure in Iraq to admit that the post-Saddam occupation would require a massive U.S. Troop presence, and LOTS of money.  Of course they removed him from his command for telling the truth.  And everything he said would be needed in Iraq has since come to pass.

Also, Richard Foster, the Budget Analyst who calculated that the Bush Medicair program would cost $551 Billion, rather than the $395 Billion Bush claimed.  Foster was threatened with firing if he didn't change his analysis.

But none of that really compares to the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife Victoria Plame from her position as a CIA deep cover operative, in retaliation for Wilson's breaking the story that Saddam's purported attempt to purchase fissionable Yellowcake from Niger for his nuclear program was in fact a fabrication and never happened, despite the fact that this story was used in Bush's 2002 State of the Union Speech to drum up support for the Iraq invasion.  The reason that this was the worst of all, is that for an administration official to out a CIA operative from deep cover is an ACT OF TREASON!  We don't know WHO in the administration did this (although suspects include direct subordinates of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney), but we know it was done, because the story was reported by Right Wing reporter Robert Novak, who was used by the leaker to break the story, without knowing that her position was that of a deep cover operative.  

So basically, if you contradict the storyline being put out by the Bush Administration, you are in line for ALL KINDS of character assassination, up to and including their willingness to endanger your life by the TREASONOUS blowing of your CIA cover.   OF COURSE Richard Clarke is going to be hit with every accusation that the Bushies can possibly think of, because that is their M.O. and they NEED to attack him, because his accusation is so damning to them.  Clarke wasn't the first critic that the Bushies have been willing to slander or threaten, and no doubt he won't be the last.

Kinda like Saddam, but the American way.  He don't kill critics, he just tries to destroy their character by lies, innuendo, and left wing conspiracy theories.  Is this the way a "compassionate, conservative" leader should act?  I think NOT!!  Six more months, six more months, six....

I can't figure out why Ashcroft or Rumsfeld or someone in the administration is not threatening to throw Novak in Guantanamo until he reveals who leaked the name.  After all, we are at war!!

Hey, face it, Clarke-S&S Publishing-Viacom-CBS are all trying to promote his book and make a buck.

This piece of fiction (yes, I have already read it folks) is no better or worse than other fine titles like Hillary's two tomes, books on the royals, and every other political tell all that has surfaced over the past 10 years.

If you believe Clarke, great.  If you don't believe Clarke, great.

Just don't slam the guy for trying to make a buck.

He wrote a controversial book during an election year.  Good for him, wish I had the time and resources to do the same.

Hannity, O'Reilly, Gore, etc have all done the same recently.  It's the trend, it makes money, who really gives a rat's ass.

For once, I seem to have come close to agreeing with sdstud. Now that is frightening.

Just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Loarthan

On the other hand, don't confuse over-dramatized non fiction with fiction.  Far be it for me to contend that everything in Clarke's book is true, especially the obviously arrogant claims that, because the Bush Administration was ignoring HIM, it was by definition ignoring everything about the Al Qaida threat.  However, one particular indictment that Clarke makes, is obviously TRUE, because it is supported by SO MANY independent sources.  And that is, that the Bush administration, especially driven by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, had a myopia about Saddam and Iraq that over-weighted Iraq as a U.S. threat in comparison to everything else.  This has been verified by NUMEROUS independent sources who ALL had inside roles in the Administration, including Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson, Rand Beers, Brig. General Eric Shinseki, and now Clarke.   Clarke just adds some more colorful anecdotal specifics to the overall tapestry, some of which may in fact be embellished.  But the overall indictment is supported by too many other sources not to have an authenticity to it.  If you still believe otherwise, you are entirely too naive.