Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "Bringing democracy to Iraq..."] [Archive Index] [>>"By the way, they own the Bible, too."]
03/28/2004 Archived Entry: "Did the NYTimes finally wake up?"
Did the NYTimes finally wake up?
Ya gotta wonder if ThugCo's lies have finally woken up the sleeping giant.
The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush pressed his top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved.Mr. Bush wanted to know "did Iraq have anything to do with this? Were they complicit in it?" Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, recounted in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes."
Mr. Bush was not trying to intimidate anyone to "produce information," she said. Rather, given the United States' "actively hostile relationship" with Iraq at the time, he was asking Mr. Clarke "a perfectly logical question," Ms. Rice said.
The conversation — which the White House suggested last week had never taken place — centers on perhaps the most volatile charge Mr. Clarke has made public in recent days: that the Bush White House became fixated on Iraq and Saddam Hussein at the expense of focusing on Al Qaeda's role in the terrorism.
In his new book, "Against All Enemies," Mr. Clarke recounts that the president pulled him and several other aides into the White House Situation Room on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, and instructed them "to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."
Mr. Clarke was incredulous, he said in the book. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this," he said he responded.
Mr. Bush answered: "I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred," according to Mr. Clarke's account. Mr. Clarke added in later interviews that he felt he was being intimidated to find a link between the attacks and Iraq.
Last week, the White House said it had no record that Mr. Bush had even been in the Situation Room that day and said the president had no recollection of such a conversation. Although administration officials stopped short of denying the account, they used it to cast doubt on Mr. Clarke's credibility as they sought to debunk the charge that the administration played down the threat posed by Al Qaeda in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks and worried instead about Iraq.
Emphasis mine.
Replies: 2 people speak up
"The conversation — which the White House suggested last week had never taken place — "
...How come when Bush or one of his surrogates, stand-ins, substitutes, hacks, flacks, lackeys or liars makes a flat-out statement it is just a "suggestion,"
... whereas if Clarke had been caught in a single use of, oh let's say "some" in one statement and "many" in another on the same topic, he would by now have been nailed to a cross of WMD's for inconsistency, flip-flopping, contradicting himself and/or threatened with indictment for perjury?
Oops, I forgot, they tried that one, didn't they? Limp Frist backed off REAL quick once he was off the floor of the Senate and back in the real world where laws of slander apply.
Posted by Xan @ 03/29/2004 12:45 AM NY
Interesting to note that Clarke gave a heart felt apology to the 911 familys while Rice skirted that and refused to admit responsability. Where is an interview with Sibel Edmonds? Wouldn't you love to see her on 60 minutes?
Posted by Demeur @ 03/29/2004 02:56 AM NY
