HIP HOP LIFESTYLE

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush ignored terror threat, claims ex-aide

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush ignored terror threat, claims ex-aide

    Bush ignored terror threat, claims adviser

    Julian Borger in Washington
    Monday March 22, 2004
    The Guardian

    George Bush's re-election campaign suffered a blow yesterday when the president's former chief counter-terrorism adviser accused him of doing "a terrible job" in protecting America against attack, largely because of a fixation on Iraq.
    Richard Clarke, who retired as the White House counter-terrorism coordinator last year, accused the president of putting pressure on him to find evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks, despite being told repeatedly that there was no link.

    "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism," said Mr Clarke.

    "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. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

    Mr Clarke made his allegations in an interview last night on a CBS current affairs programme, 60 Minutes, and in greater detail in a book, Against All Enemies, published today. He is also expected to deliver a blistering critique of the administration's performance tomorrow to a bipartisan commission investigating US preparedness for the 2001 attacks.

    Mr Clarke's book is the latest in a trickle of unflattering accounts of the Bush White House to emerge from people leaving the administration. It confirms the view provided by a former treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, of an ideological clique fixated on Iraq.

    White House officials have questioned Mr Clarke's impartiality, pointing out that he served as counter-terrorist "tsar" in Bill Clinton's White House, and although he stayed on after Mr Bush's election, he lost his cabinet rank. However, Mr Clarke also served as a state department counterterrorism adviser under President Reagan and the first President Bush.

    A senior Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, yesterday described Mr Clarke as "a serious professional", adding that "the White House is going to have to answer these charges".

    Mr Clarke's account comes at a time when the Bush re-election campaign is spending millions of dollars to define the president as a decisive wartime leader, and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry, as a vacillating liberal who is weak on defence.

    One of Mr Clarke's tasks was to chair the administration's counter-terrorism and security group, a panel of CIA, FBI and White House experts that met several times a week to assess foreign threats.

    He depicted the Bush White House as being uninterested in the threat from al-Qaida in its first eight months in office, and more concerned about Iraq. He said his urgent request in January that year for a cabinet-level meeting on the possibility of an attack was only granted a few days before 9/11. At crisis meetings in the White House the day after those attacks, Mr Clarke said he expected to discuss how to strike back at al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, and was surprised when the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, quickly shifted the subject to Iraq.

    "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Mr Clarke said in last night's interview. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaida 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."

    Mr Clarke initially thought that Mr Rumsfeld was joking, but quickly discovered he had the backing of Mr Bush.

    "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this," he said.

    "I said, 'Mr President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection ...' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer."

    Mr Clarke coordinated the writing of a report by the CIA, FBI, and his own staff, concluding that Iraq had few links with al-Qaida and no involvement in the September 11 attacks. He said: "We sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the national security adviser or deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer ... Do it again.'"

    Mr Clarke's comments came as former US president Jimmy Carter launched a withering attack, claiming that George Bush and Tony Blair had waged a war in Iraq based on "lies".

    "There was no reason for us to become involved _ That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks," he told the Independent newspaper.

  • #2
    Yeah exactly.... Al Queda just became a threat right when Bush was inogorated! It wasn't a threat during the first bombing of the World Trade Center....
    GoodGameTV.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Rumsfeld ‘wanted to attack Iraq’ on September 11

      By Liam McDougall



      ON the day of the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, Donald Rumsfeld urged George Bush to retaliate imme diately by bombing Iraq.
      Richard Clarke, then the White House counter- terrorism co-ordinator, said: “Defence secretary Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. We all said, ‘But no, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan.’ They were talking about Iraq on 9/11.?

      Rumsfeld responded by saying that “there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq?.

      Clarke – who is expected to testify on Tuesday before a US Senate hearing reviewing the attacks – said although it was clear al-Qaeda was to blame for the attacks on New York and Washington, Rumsfeld again argued for the need to bomb Iraq at a crisis meeting the next day, even though there was no evidence of the country’s involvement.

      In an interview with the US news channel CBS, Clarke said he believed the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of a long-held interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

      “I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and the al-Qaeda attacks in the US],? he said. “There’s just no connection. There’s absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda.?

      Clarke, who retired last year after 30 years of government service, also criticised Bush’s war against terrorism. Despite Bush’s national security leadership meeting formally nearly 100 times in the months before the September 11, 2001, attacks, terrorism was the topic on only two occasions.

      The last of those two meetings occurred the week before the terrorist attacks as they were putting the finishing touches to a proposed national security policy review. The review was finished on September 10, 2001 and was awaiting Bush’s approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Centre.

      “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 said. “He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something.?

      A spokesman for Rumsfeld said he could not comment.

      Comment


      • #4
        Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism right? Only paying familys of suicide bombers in Gaza strip and the west bank! Helping to fund terrorist organizations such as Al Queda, and other groups, and providing safe havens for terrorist who are apart of such organizations! And as for Saddam him self murdering innocent iraqis totaling just about in the millions...But to say Saddam and Terrorism in the same sentance is just not right huh?!
        GoodGameTV.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SlimCorn82
          Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism right? Only paying familys of suicide bombers in Gaza strip and the west bank! Helping to fund terrorist organizations such as Al Queda, and other groups, and providing safe havens for terrorist who are apart of such organizations! And as for Saddam him self murdering innocent iraqis totaling just about in the millions...But to say Saddam and Terrorism in the same sentance is just not right huh?!
          Actually, Sadam and Al-Qaida do not like each other. Al Qaida are Moslem fundementalists. Sadam's lifestyle goes against Islamic law in almost every way. Remeber, Al Qaida are so serious about the letter of Islamic law, that they are the ones who forced all Afghani women to stay in the house, literally, unless they are escorted by a husband or family member. They are not even allowed out of doors.

          These guys are serious about the law. They would never support someone like Sadam who drinks, fornicates with women, perhaps raping them, torturing believers, etc., and forcing his population to bow to his laws before the laws of Islam. Al Qaida are NOT friends of Sadam.

          I don't think anyone was saying that it is wrong to say Sadam's name in the same sentence as terrorism. I think the point was that after 911, the US gov't were NOT looking for the culprits, but they were essentially trying to frame Sadam for an act for which they DID NOT WANT to find the responsible parties! They wanted Sadam, and they didn't care who actually did the bombing......unless it was Sadam. Some people have a problem with that level of corruption in their gov't.
          Would you let the system sit (shit) down on your head again? NO, DREAD, NO.
          Would you let the system
          make you kill your brother man? NO, DREAD, NO
          .

          Comment


          • #6
            well said
            djf

            Comment


            • #7
              George Bush is a great man

              Comment


              • #8
                ^ my ass

                Comment


                • #9
                  Interesting pic
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    bush has my vote in november...and how about kerry...being involved in huge anti-vietnam protests....he now says he wasn't involved but the fbi has records of his name and everything....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I know what your sayin rainstorm...and you are right! See just because they dont like each doesnt mean that saddam isnt helping them out. Al Queda would never refuse any funding for their cause, so they could swallow thier religious pride and accpet saddams help. And Saddam being a political man trying to gain all the power he can would not have a problem funding terriost acts against the west. I original thought they had no connections between each other either but now they have found concrete evidence of saddam donating funds and/or weapons to al queda. Ya know its not like they go to each others Birthday parties or something...
                      And thats a good chocie puckin dawg, IMO kerry flip flops on issues too much and we can not have that in a president, espically in these times of terror!
                      GoodGameTV.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        REPUBLICANS"Bush" lie about WMD's, lie about iraq being a threat, lie about NO child left behind and actually cut education funding so college tuition is raised, local schools cannot afford to keep their programs. Bush lies about the patriot act so that the fbi can search our computers , our homes, or offices without a warrant and BUSH has your vote??? These are the same people who went after Eminem himself because of his lyrics and tried to get him censored.. Come on DICK CHEYNEY, laura bush.. EM talks trash in his own songs, they lie about every issue that should affect us and yet BUSH still has your vote.. Hmmm sounds a little uninformed to me..
                        www.myspace.com/jimmymcminn

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jembm9
                          REPUBLICANS"Bush" lie about WMD's, lie about iraq being a threat, lie about NO child left behind and actually cut education funding so college tuition is raised, local schools cannot afford to keep their programs. Bush lies about the patriot act so that the fbi can search our computers , our homes, or offices without a warrant and BUSH has your vote??? These are the same people who went after Eminem himself because of his lyrics and tried to get him censored.. Come on DICK CHEYNEY, laura bush.. EM talks trash in his own songs, they lie about every issue that should affect us and yet BUSH still has your vote.. Hmmm sounds a little uninformed to me..
                          you can sit there and say all those things(which you don't know what your talking about) but its not changing my vote...in november....bush is getting my vote

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pukin Dawgs
                            you can sit there and say all those things(which you don't know what your talking about) but its not changing my vote...in november....bush is getting my vote


                            I know exactly what im talking about... its what is on record.. it is fact that Bush did this.. Not only did he do all of those things, but he also lessened environment protection for our water supply and air supply, took several animals off of the endangered species act, ignored the real terrorists to focus on iraq, Not only that, but his medicare plan will end up costing senior citizens in the end, because he would not allow them to buy their meds from canada... This doesnt sound like a good president to me.. sounds like a Domestic terrorist
                            www.myspace.com/jimmymcminn

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              ok whats wrong with a selfishly fought war, if it ends all the thousands and millions getting raped, tortured, killed, and mass buried???

                              ok yea george bush is fixated on iraq blah blah he wants oil, etc etc, but is that so bad if he ends up stopping all those bad things that were going on in iraq?? its like people straight up DEFEND saddam hussein against bush.

                              and besides all that shit im votin bush cuz i dont want guys marrying eachother. i dont support that behavior.
                              I cant help my laughter as she cries
                              my soul brings tears
                              to angelic eyes
                              and miles away my mother cries
                              omnipotence nurturing malevolence

                              Comment

                              Post ad widget 300x250

                              Collapse

                              LATEST POSTS

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by red rum, 11-21-2008, 01:21 PM
                              20 responses
                              618 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mark Ultra  
                              Started by Deborahlanker, 05-26-2020, 02:44 PM
                              2 responses
                              12 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mark Ultra  
                              Started by Heridan, 11-09-2019, 02:25 AM
                              2 responses
                              27 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post BrookeDavis  
                              Started by Deborahlanker, 01-04-2021, 12:08 PM
                              1 response
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Bynarden  
                              Started by Deborahlanker, 01-22-2021, 08:40 AM
                              0 responses
                              1 view
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Deborahlanker  
                              Started by Heridan, 04-08-2020, 08:20 AM
                              3 responses
                              67 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Friese
                              by Friese
                               
                              Started by AleksShamles, 01-22-2021, 12:46 AM
                              1 response
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Zavylon
                              by Zavylon
                               
                              Started by RochelleSmiley, 01-21-2021, 10:12 PM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post RochelleSmiley  
                              Started by FrankCobalt, 12-03-2020, 05:24 PM
                              4 responses
                              14 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Angustin  
                              Started by basketballeven, 12-23-2020, 11:39 PM
                              1 response
                              5 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post lindsey0120  
                              Working...
                              X