Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious: here's the admin's response to that point. Are you saying, you doubt this response is truthful, or are you saying that it's nonresponsive, or . . . what?
"Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.
The Facts: The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.
When the President and his senior advisers met at Camp David on September 15-16, 2001, to plan a response to September 11, the DCI told the President that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. The President then advised his NSC Principals on September 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda, and that the initial US response to 9/11 would be to target al-Qa'ida and Taliban in Afghanistan.
Dick Clarke did prepare a memo for the President regarding links between Iraq and 9/11. He sent this memo to Dr. Rice on September 18, after the President, based on the advice of his DCI that that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack, had decided that Iraq would not be a target in our military response for 9/11. Because the President had already made this decision, Steve Hadley returned the memo to Dick Clarke on September 25 asking Clarke to "please update and resubmit," to add any new information that might have appeared. Clarke indicated there was none. So when Clarke sent the memo forward again on September 25, Dr. Rice returned it, not because she did not want the President to read the answer set out in the memo, but because the President had already been provided the answer and had already acted based on it."
|
I honestly wish this conversation was not taking place, as I'm hearing stuff I'd rather not hear. CBS News has a bit of the quotes from 60 Minutes, and (paraphrasing), the quotes were more-or-less "on 9/11 they were talking about Iraq... on 9/12 they were talking about Iraq".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607622.shtml
So showing me that they eventually accepted that it was bin Laden and Afghanistan on, e.g., 9/17, 9/20, 10/anything, is not responding to the concern, and it appears to be a disingenuous non-response to the implication of Clarke's information. He says they were fixated on Iraq and predisposed to blame Iraq for things like 9/11. They say, well we didn't bomb Iraq, we ended up taking Afghanistan out etc....
Of course they took Afghanistan out, and I'm glad they did, and I just argued with a coworker yesterday that there is reason to believe Kerry would not have done so and could not have done so with his international consensus approach. So Kudos for a strong response on the Afghanistan front. However, in the bigger picture, the idea that they might have initially treated it like an automatic reason to attack Iraq, is certainly of great interest to the public. Combine that with, e.g., the WMD debate, and you can see how this adds to the argument of his detractors. Frankly, the WH recognizes how well Clarke is being received. I mean, who in the administration hasn't tried to counter Clarke in the last 2 days?
My bottom line, and it only reinforces what I (and I suspect you and/or many other conservatives on the board) believe, is that Rummy (and Ashcroft) are huge political liabilities. Ashcroft should have been dumped more than a year ago, and Rummy should have been given notice about 6-12 months ago, once his "tactical" disagreements with the military brass came to light.
Or, they could just say that Rummy wasn't already fixated on Saddam on, e.g., 9/11.
Hello
EF grammar
