Watch "60 Minutes" this Sunday Evening

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Concerning 9-11 intelligence confirming that Iraq had neither ties with al Qaeda nor anything to do with 9-11. Stuff we already knew, but this guy, at least, has more credibility than Dubya or his administration.

We have all heard all of this before, but now that it is found to be true, everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon. The more the merrier, I guess.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/...ain607356.shtml

(CBS) Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Correspondent Lesley Stahl that on Sept. 11, 2001, and the day after - when it was clear al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation.

Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, March 21 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Quote:

"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12."

Richard Clarke

EXCERPT:

• Read an excerpt from Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," which will be available Monday, March 22.

[SouthLink02 8]

After 60 minutes railed one of my Uncles in a story...I have never watched that show again.

[DKW 86 7,727]

After 60 minutes railed one of my Uncles in a story...I have never watched that show again.

Details please?

[SouthLink02 8]

Uncle is FBI Agent David Szady and 60 minutes did an article ramming the FBI for wrongly accusing the American during the Hanson case. Granted, they did screw up....they overblew the story, IMO and to this day he is still working for them if that shows something.

[DKW 86 7,727]

Thanks, Hanson was the FBI traitor right?

[SouthLink02 8]

Correct

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Looks like 60 Minutes may end up regretting giving this boob so much press. Not even Lieberman or Biden believe him:

White House Rebuts Former Adviser's Claims 

Monday, March    22, 2004

WASHINGTON — The White House is disputing assertions by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator that the administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by Al Qaeda in the months leading up to Sept. 11, 2001.

National security deputies worked diligently between March and September 2001 to develop a strategy to attack the terror network, one that was completed and ready for Bush's approval a week before the airliner hijackings, the White House said in a statement Sunday.

It said the president told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice early in his administration he was "'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against Al Qaeda, rather than simply waiting to respond."

The point-by-point rebuttal confronts claims by Richard A. Clarke in a new book, "Against All Enemies," that is scathingly critical of administration actions.

Clarke wrote that Rice appeared never to have heard of Al Qaeda until she was warned early in 2001 about the terrorist organization and that she "looked skeptical" about his warnings.

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," Clarke said in the book, going on sale Monday.

But on Monday, Rice told Fox News this account is "ridiculous."

"I don't know why Dick Clarke tries to read people's minds," she said, explaining how she heard of Al Qaeda in 1998.

Clarke said Rice appeared not to recognize post-Cold War security issues and effectively demoted him within the National Security Council staff. He retired last year after 30 years in government...

...Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel investigating the attacks, recounted his early meeting with Rice as support for his contention the administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by Al Qaeda.

He said that within one week of Bush's inauguration he "urgently" sought a meeting of senior Cabinet leaders to discuss "the imminent Al Qaeda threat."

Three months later, in April 2001, Clarke met with deputy secretaries. During that meeting, he wrote, the Defense Department's Paul Wolfowitz told Clarke, "You give bin Laden too much credit," and he said Wolfowitz sought to steer the discussion to Iraq.

The White House responded that the Bush administration kept Clarke as a holdover from the Clinton era because of its concerns over Al Qaeda...

...Bartlett said Clarke's memo to Rice in January 2001 discussed recommendations to improve security at U.S. sites overseas, not inside the United States. "Each one of these, while important, wouldn't have impacted 9/11," he said...

...Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush — who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election — was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.

"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."

And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told ABC's "This Week" that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened."

Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry said Sunday he asked for copies of Clarke's book to review. Kerry is vacationing at his Idaho home through Wednesday before returning to the campaign trail...

...Kerry's adviser on national security, Rand Beers, is a close associate of Clarke and held the job as antiterrorism adviser under Bush during part of 2002. Clarke quotes Beers in the book as asking his advice when Beers considered quitting because "they're using the war on terror politically."

The White House's Bartlett noted Clarke's friendship with Beers and the upcoming presidential election.

"We believe the timing is questionable," he said. "When (Clarke) left office, he had every opportunity" to make any grievances known.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114811,00.html

[Donutboy 0]

Looks like 60 Minutes may end up regretting giving this boob so much press.  Not even Lieberman or Biden believe him:

White House Rebuts Former Adviser's Claims 

Monday, March     22, 2004

WASHINGTON — The White House is disputing assertions by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator that the administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by Al Qaeda in the months leading up to Sept. 11, 2001.

National security deputies worked diligently between March and September 2001 to develop a strategy to attack the terror network, one that was completed and ready for Bush's approval a week before the airliner hijackings, the White House said in a statement Sunday.

It said the president told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice early in his administration he was "'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against Al Qaeda, rather than simply waiting to respond."

The point-by-point rebuttal confronts claims by Richard A. Clarke in a new book, "Against All Enemies," that is scathingly critical of administration actions.

Clarke wrote that Rice appeared never to have heard of Al Qaeda until she was warned early in 2001 about the terrorist organization and that she "looked skeptical" about his warnings.

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," Clarke said in the book, going on sale Monday.

But on Monday, Rice told Fox News this account is "ridiculous."

"I don't know why Dick Clarke tries to read people's minds," she said, explaining how she heard of Al Qaeda in 1998.

Clarke said Rice appeared not to recognize post-Cold War security issues and effectively demoted him within the National Security Council staff. He retired last year after 30 years in government...

...Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel investigating the attacks, recounted his early meeting with Rice as support for his contention the administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by Al Qaeda.

He said that within one week of Bush's inauguration he "urgently" sought a meeting of senior Cabinet leaders to discuss "the imminent Al Qaeda threat."

Three months later, in April 2001, Clarke met with deputy secretaries. During that meeting, he wrote, the Defense Department's Paul Wolfowitz told Clarke, "You give bin Laden too much credit," and he said Wolfowitz sought to steer the discussion to Iraq.

The White House responded that the Bush administration kept Clarke as a holdover from the Clinton era because of its concerns over Al Qaeda...

...Bartlett said Clarke's memo to Rice in January 2001 discussed recommendations to improve security at U.S. sites overseas, not inside the United States. "Each one of these, while important, wouldn't have impacted 9/11," he said...

...Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush — who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election — was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.

"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric."

And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told ABC's "This Week" that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened."

Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry said Sunday he asked for copies of Clarke's book to review. Kerry is vacationing at his Idaho home through Wednesday before returning to the campaign trail...

...Kerry's adviser on national security, Rand Beers, is a close associate of Clarke and held the job as antiterrorism adviser under Bush during part of 2002. Clarke quotes Beers in the book as asking his advice when Beers considered quitting because "they're using the war on terror politically."

The White House's Bartlett noted Clarke's friendship with Beers and the upcoming presidential election.

"We believe the timing is questionable," he said. "When (Clarke) left office, he had every opportunity" to make any grievances known.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114811,00.html

Lieberman assesses that Dubya didn't focus on Afghanistan AFTER 9/11. He doesn't mention before 9/11. Biden merely claims that Dubya wasn't responsible for Al Quida. Neither of them rebut the claim that Dubya ignored the terrorist threat prior to 9/11. Clinton has stated that he is going to testify to the 9/11 commission that he gave Dubya the information about Al Quida upon transfer of power and Bush never used it until after 9/11.

However, if your allegation is true, it kinda makes you wonder about how good a judge of character Dubya is. It seems that his former hires are doing more damage to him that the DNC could ever hope to do.

Have you noticed the pattern here though..... A former employee speaks out and he's suddenly unbelievable. A former ally votes against the "Bush Coalition" and they're suddenly weak on terrorism. Well, the new information shows everyone who's weak on terrorism. BTW, Al Quida is in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq. Bush scored a lot of political points in Iraq by calling it the war on terrorism during the 2002 elections but all of his bogus claims are going to be an albatross around his neck this fall.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Each day, more and more of these Al Qaeda savages are being sent to their happy hunting grounds by the US Military, much to the chagrin to those of you on the left. Dick Clark has a book to sell, and it looks like he will wind up making his big fat paycheck on leftist dopes that subscribe to his "Bush Knew....Bush Lied" theory. It seems ol' Dick is harboring some ill will towards President Bush for firing his incompetent --- shortly after taking office.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I could ask the same question of you Donut...do you see a pattern emerging? Such as, former Bush official doesn't feel his viewpoints are being regarded as highly as he thinks they should, or thinks he isn't being given enough credit for his work...official resigns...official writes a "tell-all" book and hits the news magazine circuit to promote it.

And Rice disputes the account "categorically" and all Clarke seems to have is his newfound ability to read people's minds and infer things that they didn't say.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

ABOUT THIS RICHARD CLARKE GUY ON 60 MINUTES.....

Neal Boortz

Well, the media is serving up more fuel for the "Bush lied" crowd. Today's installment comes courtesy of disgruntled former White House employee Richard Clarke who is (surprise!) hawking a book. Clarke was an anti-terrorism advisor for Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. When the current President Bush took office, Clarke was stripped of his cabinet-level rank. I am sure that has nothing to do with any of this. Sure.

Clarke claims he was all but told by the President to manufacture a link between between 9/11 and Iraq. The White House claims they have no evidence the conversation ever took place. Here's a newsflash: people lie ... and people lie to sell books. Clarke also claims to have been repeatedly ignored while trying to warn about Al-Qaeda,  and says the administration wasn't doing enough on terrorism. Riiight.

All it takes is a little digging to realize this is nothing more than a partisan attack from a bitter Democrat. It turns out Clarke is close to Rand Beers, who is advising the Kerry campaign. Of course, you'll never hear the mainstream media report that. And if Mr. Clarke was so concerned about national security, terrorism, and the administration's handling of it, then why did he wait until now to tell everybody about it?

Because his book is coming out. Case closed.

More info on Rand Beers

Newsmax

MSNBC featured a Washington Post story about Rand Beers a former Bush administration counterterrorism expert who resigned from his White House job five days before the Iraq war began and has now signed up as Kerry’s national security advisor.

In a lengthy story, the Post portrays Beers as a frustrated Paul Revere who wasn’t listened to in the Bush White House. His criticisms match those most of the Democrat candidates have fired at the White House – not surprising because Beers is a Democrat. The story is a plus for Kerry, giving credence to his attacks on the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policies, right down to the complaint that the president failed to exert enough diplomatic pressure before launching the war.

The Post takes great pains to avoid presenting Beers as a disgruntled bureaucrat who is bitter because his Clintonesque views were ignored. But they give the show away with a quote from Paul C. Light, a scholar with the liberal Brookings Institution. "He’s not just declaring that he’s a Democrat. He’s declaring that he’s a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss out of office."

What the Post neglected to report is that in 2002 Beers, then head of the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, "rescinded a statement made under oath before a federal court that claimed Colombian rebels and narco-traffickers had trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, after top intelligence and law enforcement officials disputed the claim."

Washington Post

Beers's resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know?

<snip>

Into this tricky intersection of terrorism, policy and politics steps Beers, a lifelong bureaucrat, unassuming and tight-lipped until now. He is an unlikely insurgent. He served on the NSC under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and the current Bush. The oath of office hangs on the wall by his bed; he tears up when he watches "The West Wing."

Classical Values

Then there's this report from Richard Clarke, that the Iraq war inflamed bin Laden:

Clarke also harshly criticizes Bush over his decision to invade Iraq, saying it helped brew a new wave of anti-American sentiment among supporters of Osama bin Laden.

"Bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.' This is part of his propaganda," Clarke said. "So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ... and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, which was doing nothing to threaten us."

This fits right in with the prevailing meme that the world is more dangerous not because of al Qaida, but because Bush and the war in Iraq pissed off al Qaida.

I have no idea whether Richard Clarke is endorsing Kerry (although his close friend and teaching colleague, Rand Beers, is Kerry's National Security advisor and may have recruited Clarke by now), but if the idea is to realign U.S. foreign policy so as to avoid irritating al Qaida, I think it is fair to ask whether this might work.

Isn't that what so many people call appeasement?

Can appeasement be made to work?

If so, then Kerry is clearly the guy to make a case for it. The problem is that appeasement has not worked before; it only emboldened al Qaida.

In any case, Clarke's job dealt with cyber-security, (see this interview) and I am not sure whether his revelations will be as earth-shaking as the media hoopla might make them appear.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

And yet another analysis of Clarke's bent view of things. Amazing how none of this stuff came up in the 60 Minutes interview, huh?:

On Richard Clarke

by Stephen F. Hayes

03/22/2004 8:00:00 AM

"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."

Those are the words of Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official in the Bush and Clinton administrations. Clarke appeared on CBS 60 Minutes last night to trash the Bush administration and its handling of the war on terror. The timing was propitious. Clarke has a book out today and he is testifying before the September 11 Commission later this week. Expect to hear a lot more about Richard Clarke and from Richard Clarke in the coming months, especially as the presidential campaign intensifies.

Clarke's testimonials are, in a word, bizarre. In his own world, Clarke was the hero who warned Bush administration officials about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda ad nauseum. The Bush administration, in Clarke's world, just didn't care. In Clarke's world, eight months of Bush administration counterterrorism policy is more important than eight years of Clinton administration counterterrorism policy.

"He's creating this new reality to cover his own legacy of failure," says one senior Bush administration official.

In fact, Bush administration officials who worked with Clarke say his warnings about bin Laden were maddeningly vague. Everyone knew bin Laden was a serious threat. Clarke's job, before he was demoted to his position as cyberterrorism czar, was to propose policies to address that threat. But his chief policy recommendation--arming the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan--was already under consideration and in any case would have done little to prevent a September 11 attack already in its final planning stages...

...CLARKE HAD FEW WORDS OF CRITICISM for President Clinton on 60 Minutes, despite having worked at the senior levels of his administration. At least he's consistent. Consider an interview with Clarke from PBS's Frontline: Clarke initially defends President Clinton, but an astute interviewer from Frontline with obvious knowledge of the chronology following the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000, presses him:

FRONTLINE: Some also say that due to the Lewinsky scandal, more action perhaps was never undertaken. In your eyes?

CLARKE: The interagency group on which I sat and John O'Neill sat--we never asked for a particular action to be authorized and were refused. We were never refused. Any time we took a proposal to higher authority, with one or two exceptions, it was approved . . .

FRONTLINE: But didn't you push for military action after the [al Qaeda bombing of the USS] Cole?

CLARKE: Yes, that's one of the exceptions..

FRONTLINE: How important is that exception?

CLARKE: I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists sending them out around the world would have been destroyed. So many, many trained and indoctrinated al Qaeda terrorists, which now we have to hunt down country by country, many of them would not be trained and would not be indoctrinated, because there wouldn't have been a safe place to do it if we had destroyed the camps earlier.

FRONTLINE: Without intelligence operatives on the ground in these organizations, how in the end does one stop something like this? If you look back on it now and you had one wish, you could have had one thing done, what would it have been?

CLARKE: Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. They would have been a hell of a lot less capable of recruiting people. Their whole "Come to Afghanistan where you'll be safe and you'll be trained"--well, that wouldn't have worked if every time they got a camp together, it was blown up by the United States. That's the one thing that we recommended that didn't happen--the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.

The "conveyor belt" was, of course, never destroyed. But that fact seems not to matter to Clarke, who nonetheless suggests that the Bush administration bears most of the responsibility for September 11.

THERE ISN'T MUCH THAT'S FUNNY in discussions of war and terrorism. But Clarke's back-and-forth with 60 Minutes reporter Lesley Stahl on the Clinton administration's response to Iraq's 1993 assassination attempt on President George H.W. Bush offers a brief moment of levity.

The assassination attempt came just three months after President Clinton told the New York Times's Tom Friedman that being a Baptist and a believer in "deathbed conversions" he was willing to give Saddam a fresh start.

Saddam dispatched a rag-tag group of intelligence operatives to assassinate his nemesis. They failed. And when the FBI determined that Saddam's intelligence service was behind the plot, President Clinton ordered a handful of Tomahawk missiles to destroy the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.

It was a flaccid response to the attempted assassination of a former head of state. But Clarke doesn't see it that way. Along with the strikes, Clarke says, the Clinton administration sent "a very clear message through diplomatic channels" that further Iraqi terrorism would be dealt with more severely. Clarke calls this "a very chilling message."

IN HIS INTERVIEW with Stahl, Clarke goes to great lengths to suggest that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. At one point in the interview, Clarke makes a stunning declaration. "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

Leave aside the fact that Clarke was a key player in the decision to strike the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998. That strike came twenty days after al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton administration officials repeatedly cited Iraqi support for Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation and al Shifa in their defense of the targeting.

Disregard, too, the fact that when the Clinton Justice Department blamed bin Laden for those attacks, the indictment specifically cited an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda, under which the Iraqis would help al Qaeda with "weapons development" in exchange for a promise from bin Laden that he wouldn't work against the Iraqi regime.

More important, Clarke's assertion is directly contradicted by CIA director George Tenet. In a letter he wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002, Tenet cited numerous examples of Iraqi support for al Qaeda. Tenet wrote: "We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

Clarke should answer several questions when he appears before the September 11 Commission this week. Among them:

(1) Is George Tenet wrong about Iraqi support for al Qaeda?

(2) Why did the Clinton administration cite an "understanding" between bin Laden and Iraq in its indictment of bin Laden for the 1998 embassy bombings?

(3) Did Iraq support al Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in Sudan?

(4) Clinton administration officials, including Clarke's former boss Sandy Berger, stand by their decision to target al Shifa. Does Clarke?

(5) What did the Clinton administration do to get the Iraqis to turn over Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi harbored by the regime after mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attacks?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...03/894kpvcp.asp

This guy is about as credible as the proverbial homeless guy holding up signs that say "The End Is Near." But that won't stop the libs from trumpeting him as the definitive authority on this whole situation...despite his glaring inconsistencies between how he assesses the Bush administration versus similar situations and how the Clintion admin dealt with things.

[MDM4AU 337]

Yeah, but Titan, you know facts don't mean anything to us "Evil Conservatives."

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Condoleeza Rice's full op-ed rebuttal, from The Washington Post:

9/11: For The Record

By Condoleezza Rice

Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A21  

The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton  administration and the first eight months of the Bush  administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the  U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.

During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the  president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted.  No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new  administration. 

We adopted several of these ideas. We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances. We increased American support for anti-terror activities in Uzbekistan. 

We pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision. But the Predator was designed to conduct surveillance, not carry weapons. Arming it presented many technical challenges and required extensive testing. Military and intelligence officials agreed that the armed Predator was simply not ready for deployment before the fall of 2001. In any case, the Predator was not a silver bullet that could have destroyed al Qaeda or stopped Sept. 11. 

We also considered a modest spring 2001 increase in funding for the Northern Alliance. At that time, the Northern Alliance was clearly not going to sweep across Afghanistan and dispose of al Qaeda. It had been battered by defeat and held less than 10 percent of the country. Only the addition of American air power, with U.S. special forces and intelligence officers on the ground, allowed the Northern Alliance its historic military advances in late 2001. We folded this idea into our broader strategy of arming tribes throughout Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. 

Let us be clear. Even their most ardent advocates did not contend that these ideas, even taken together, would have destroyed al Qaeda. We judged that the collection of ideas presented to us were insufficient for the strategy President Bush  sought. The  president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or "roll back" the threat. Once in office, we quickly began  crafting a comprehensive new strategy to "eliminate" the al Qaeda network. The president wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile strikes. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies." 

Through the spring and summer of 2001, the  national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda -- which was expected to take years. Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our 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. It focused on the crucial link between al Qaeda and the Taliban. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al Qaeda sanctuary -- and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime. The strategy focused on the key role of Pakistan in this effort and the need to get Pakistan to drop its support of the Taliban. This became the first major foreign-policy strategy document of the Bush administration -- not Iraq, not the ABM Treaty, but eliminating al Qaeda.

Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation. President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the  director of the CIA every day -- meetings that I attended. And I personally met with George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterror effort. 

Through the summer increasing intelligence "chatter" focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures.  The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration alerted airlines, airports and local authorities, warning of potential attacks on Americans. 

Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists.  The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern." 

We now know that the real threat had been in the United States since at least 1999. The plot to attack New York and Washington had been hatching for nearly two years. According to the FBI, by June 2001 16 of the 19 hijackers were already here. Even if we had known exactly where Osama bin Laden was, and the armed Predator had been available to strike him, the Sept. 11 hijackers almost certainly would have carried out their plan. So, too, if the Northern Alliance had somehow managed to topple the Taliban,  the Sept. 11 hijackers were here in America -- not in Afghanistan. 

President Bush has acted swiftly to unify and streamline our efforts to secure the American homeland. He has transformed the FBI into an agency dedicated to catching terrorists and preventing future attacks. The president and Congress, through the USA Patriot Act, have broken down the legal and bureaucratic walls that prior to Sept. 11 hampered intelligence and law enforcement agencies from collecting and sharing vital threat information. Those who now argue for rolling back the Patriot Act's changes invite us to forget the important lesson we learned on Sept. 11. 

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the president, like all Americans, wanted to know who was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq -- a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the  president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. 

Because of President Bush's vision and leadership, our nation is safer. We have won battles in the war on terror, but the war is far from over. However long it takes, this great nation will prevail. 

The writer is the national security adviser.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar21.html

It's a shame that CBS and 60 Minutes don't understand that journalism includes getting both sides of the story. Does anyone recall anything close to equal time being given last night either to interviewing Condi Rice or at least reporting on some of these vastly different accounts. Everything I've seen thus far seems to show that they only gave a smattering of time to accounts that went against Clarke's story.

[War Eagle 96 10]

Concerning 9-11 intelligence confirming that Iraq had neither ties with al Qaeda nor anything to do with 9-11. Stuff we already knew, but this guy, at least, has more credibility than Dubya or his administration.

We have all heard all of this before, but now that it is found to be true, everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon. The more the merrier, I guess.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/...ain607356.shtml

(CBS) Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Correspondent Lesley Stahl that on Sept. 11, 2001, and the day after - when it was clear al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation.

Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, March 21 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Quote:

"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12."

Richard Clarke

EXCERPT:

• Read an excerpt from Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," which will be available Monday, March 22.

Right, Clarke thought the "real" terror threat would come from "cyber-terrorism" everyone thought he was a hack, so no one would listen to him.

911 comes along and his buddy Kerry is running for president, so it's time to release a book in which the truth was stretched. The guy's a goofball and everyone but the sycophant liberal main-stream media knows it.

Nothing new, more bilge-spew from the left.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Here is a interesting link Matt Drudge is reporting.

Drudge Report

NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

CBSNEWS did not inform its viewers last night that its parent company owns and has a direct financial stake in the success of the book by former White House terror staffer turned Bush critic, Dick Clarke, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

60 MINUTES aired a double-segment investigative report on the new book "Against All Enemies" -- but did not disclose how CBSNEWS parent VIACOM is publishing the book and will profit from any and all sales!

ETHICAL BREACH

CBS even used heavy promotion for the 60 MINUTES/book launch during its Sunday sports shows.

It is not clear who made the final decision at CBSNEWS not to inform the viewer during 60 MINUTES how they were watching a news story about a VIACOM product.

60 MINUTES pro Lesley Stahl is said to have been aware of the conflict before the program aired.

[MDM4AU 337]

What's this I hear about Clarke being for The Department Of Homeland Security, pushing for the #2 spot behind Ridge, then leaving the Bush Administration after someone else was named? Now he is against it? Go figure! :roll:

Is Kerry's Foreign Policy Advisor best-buds with Clarke?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Rush had a good list of questions for Richard Clarke. Oh, that Leslie Stahl would have had the wherewithal to ask him these.

1.  Mr. Clarke, the first time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?  

                

2.  Mr. Clarke, the second time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?  

                

3.  Mr. Clarke, the third time the Sudanese government offered bin Laden to the United States, exactly what advice did you give Bill Clinton?  

                

4.  When Al-Qaeda attacked our barracks in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Clarke, what exactly advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them?  

                

5.  Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, what advice did you give Clinton for striking back at them? 

6.  Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000, what advice did you give President Clinton for striking back at them?  

7.  Mr. Clarke, when Al-Qaeda attacked the two U.S. embassies in North Africa, weren't you one of the experts who advised Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan?  

                

8.  Mr. Clarke, when Clinton was slashing the defense budget in the face of these Al-Qaeda attacks, did you advise him against it?  

                

9.  Mr. Clarke, when Clinton undermined the CIA in the face of all these takers, did you advise him against doing that?  

10.  Mr. Clarke, isn't it true that you and your colleagues in the Clinton administration generally were complete and miserable failures in defending this nation for eight years, and isn't it a little weak of you to now come forward and say that what Bush didn't do in the first nine months of his term, is pathetic? 

This actually gives me a new perspective on things. Maybe the reason Clinton didn't do anything about Bin Laden or al Qaida was because of the crappy advice he was getting from Richard Clarke!

[MDM4AU 337]

Here is why she would not ask him any tough questions:

One of the largest global media empires, Viacom has a financial interest in broadcast and cable television, radio, Internet, book publishing, and film production and distribution. Some of this vertically integrated conglomerate's highly recognizable properties include the CBS network [60 Minutes], MTV, Infinity broadcasting, Simon & Schuster [Clarke's Publisher], ...

Columbia Journalism Review Link

Simon & Schuster also published O'Neils book. :roll: