21-04-2004 01:36									#1
	Will the Bushies Ever Accept the Truth??? Enter the AD-FREE zone

http://www.salon.com/opinion/featur...arke/index.html

Clarke's vindication
Just weeks ago, Bush officials were solemnly accusing former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke of being a liar and a self-promoter. But Bob Woodward's book proves that Clarke was right -- and that it was his opponents who were the liars.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By David Sirota

April 20, 2004 | The one person who should be happiest about the publication of Bob Woodward's new book is surely former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke. After insisting that President Bush had begun planning the Iraq invasion soon after Sept. 11, Clarke was denounced by the White House and on the floor of the Senate as a lying, disgruntled profiteer. But with Woodward's undisputed revelations that Iraq War planning began almost immediately after 9/11, Clarke has been vindicated as a truth-teller. It is now the White House that must explain why the public was deliberately lied to about the war.

Clarke and Woodward are not the first to confirm that the invasion of Iraq was being planned soon after or even before Sept. 11.

# CBS News reported on Sept. 4, 2002, that "barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq -- even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks."

# The Washington Post reported on Jan. 12, 2003, that six days after Sept. 11 Bush signed an order "directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq."

# Former British ambassador Christopher Meyer confirmed that "President Bush first asked British Prime Minister Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after" Sept. 11.

# Ambassador Meyer reported on Dec. 2, 2001, that "President Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation" against Iraq that could involve "U.S. forces fighting on the ground."

# Former Bush State Department official Richard Haas noted that at a meeting with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in July 2002, she replied, "Don't waste your breath" when he asked about diplomatic efforts on Iraq.

# Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill published documents proving that the president "ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before" Sept. 11 -- an account corroborated by another White House aide.

In other words, Clarke's account and Woodward's independent confirmation are only the most recent evidence that the Bush administration used 9/11 as a platform to pursue the predetermined goal of war in Iraq. But before Woodward's book, top White House officials paraded on national television in a coordinated effort to discredit those who had come forward with the facts.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan was first. In his March 23 briefing, he was asked point-blank whether, immediately after 9/11, "the president was already directing the Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq." He replied, "That's part of his revisionist history." The reporter then asked, "Are you saying [Clarke's charges] are not true?" "Yes, that's right. I am. That's just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that."

McClellan's answer had clearly been parsed, poll-tested and approved beforehand by Karl Rove's political shop in the White House, which had used such phraseology before to defend its Iraq policy. McClellan did not stop there. He went on to tell reporters that Clarke's well-substantiated assertions about Iraq planning "are deeply irresponsible and they are flat-out wrong."

The same day McClellan assailed Clarke, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was asked by 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer about charges that Wolfowitz and others in the administration focused on Iraq after 9/11. At the end a rambling answer, Wolfowitz dismissed Clarke as having a "creative memory" and said it was "playing tricks." Yet Wolfowitz admitted that "in 2002, in January, the president said, OK, I want to see military options for Iraq" -- confirming Clarke's central assertion that the White House began planning for war almost immediately after 9/11.

Finally, Rice rounded off the attack on Clarke with a series of falsehoods. On March 22, the national security advisor told the NBC "Today" show that after 9/11 "Iraq is going to be put to the side." Then, on March 24, Rice said that the president signed a military directive after 9/11, but one that "says it's Afghanistan." She omitted the directive's order for the Pentagon to draw up invasion plans for Iraq.

Then, at the White House's instigation, the smear campaign against Clarke was carried to the floor of the Senate. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., excoriated Clarke for having "lied to the press" and claimed Clarke had perjured himself by supposedly telling "two entirely different stories under oath." But according to Slate, Frist "later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies" in Clarke's testimony. It also turned out, as the American Prospect reported, "Frist's senior national-security adviser, who advised him on the speech attacking Clarke, is one Steve E. Biegun, former executive secretary of Bush's National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice from 2001 through 2003."

The calumnies against Clarke were echoed, not just by the reliable amplifiers at Fox, The Washington Times and The Weekly Standard, but by neoconservatives with megaphones on the opinion pages of mainstream newspapers. David Brooks of the New York Times wrote, "Clarke has turned himself into a mendacious glory-hound whose claims are contradictory." Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post denounced Clarke as "not just a perjurer but a partisan perjurer."

Conservative pundit Bob Novak, on CNN, asked a guest whether Clarke's charges were false because he had a "problem with this African-American woman, Condoleezza Rice?" And Ann Coulter was invited on MSNBC, where she said Clarke's charges should be dismissed because he was just "upset a black woman took his job."

In the preface to his book, Against All Enemies, Clarke wrote that the Bush White House was "adept at revenge," and he expected it. He was not disappointed. But those who claimed he was lying were themselves lying. They knew full well what they had done inside the White House -- and they knew that Clarke knew, too. Rather than being "out of the loop," as Vice President Dick Cheney claimed, Clarke was at the center of the events he described. The attacks against him were intended to defend the White House against the growing disillusionment with its policies and credibility. Now Woodward's book underscores in its details Clarke's story. It also casts a light on the recent lies that have been told. And the credibility gap grows.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
David J. Sirota is the editor of The Progress Report at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. Additional research was provided by Christy Harvey and Judd Legum.

	21-04-2004 22:57									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

comon you neocons - come out to play.

	21-04-2004 23:04									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That isn't a very unbiased article.

	21-04-2004 23:05									#5
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Yeah, this is like one of those fairground attractions where you shoot at the ducks.

Beating up on the righties is getting boring, given that they have no defence.

No, I lied. It will never get boring.

	21-04-2004 23:06									#6
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Not to defend any specific item listed, I am curious about what other plans were requested right after 9/11.

I wouldn't be surprised if plans for retribution against afganistan were requested, and maybe many others.
If the plans for Iraq were the only ones requested, then it would seem more damning, but if Iraq was only one of others requested, then this really doesn't disturb me. It's always nice to have plans in hand before making decisions. It should also be noted that even those these plans were requested, it was considerable time before they were acted on. Our focus was elsewhere for quite a while.

	21-04-2004 23:12									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

As some of the more astute posters know, the Pentagon maintains battle plans against a number of different countries. Asking for an update on the Iraq plan would be nothing more than prudent given the events of 9/11. If (yes a big if, I know) Iraq had been involved and had WMD and threatened to use them, then the same people would be griping that "we were unprepared!" and berate the President for not updating plans. It just depends on which side of the issue you are on how you see it.

	21-04-2004 23:13									#8
	Remove this text

It's not so much that they did it, it's that they lied about saying the decision to declare war on Iraq was made in 2003, and then they've been lying since then to protect that lie, attacking former staffer after former staffer when those staffers out the Administration.

This Admin has a serious hate-on for the truth.

	21-04-2004 23:18									#9
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It's not so much that they did it, it's that they lied about saying the decision to declare war on Iraq was made in 2003, and then they've been lying since then to protect that lie, attacking former staffer after former staffer when those staffers out the Administration. This Admin has a serious hate-on for the truth.

I'm curious how having a plan ready translates into a decision to use it?

You know, there is an old plan still around somewhere for the invasion of Canada (WWII era...made in case Canada fell and we had to retake it).

Their are fairly current plans for invasion of Eastern Europe. I'm sure the North Korean plan gets dusted off fairly regularly.

Does this mean the decision has been made on these also?

Your argument, although well done, is a stretch when compared to the reality of how these decisions are made.

	21-04-2004 23:22									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

A desire to do something and actually doing it are two different things. I agree that there is ample information that there was a desire, but it wasn't DONE right away. So I don't consider it that big a deal.
Having plans updated for invading a country that we have had a decade long record of conflict with seems the sensible path.
During the cold war, how many plans do you think we had for the USSR going around? It doesn't mean we were planning on using them, just being prepared.

	21-04-2004 23:22									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

If they merely asked for the drawing up of plans, that wouldn't be very telling. The Pentagon is always conveniently drawing up plans and engaging in wargames of countries that are attacked by the U.S. soon afterwards. In 1990, before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. was conducted a wargame against Iraq.

When placed in an overall context, however, it's another piece of evidence that this war was planned long ago.

	21-04-2004 23:23									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That's all irrelevant. We know that significant portions of the administration have wanted to "get" Saddam Hussein for years. The PNAC was sufficient proof for that, it's right there in their own words.

And there is no way that any reasonable person could have thought that Iraq had anything to do with 911 - even on 911 itself. Iraq's strategy over the last five years had been to try to weasel its way around the UN until popular support for the sanctions dropped. It beggars belief to think that Saddam would be party to an attack on the US. He doesn't really have a hate on for the US anyway, he saw the US as a practical problem, not an ideological enemy (whatever he may have said for domestic political purposes).

In fact, even CNN knew who'd done it right away - Osama Bin Laden (or someone like him). No one else had a political or strategic interest in attacking the United States.

If Bush said that Iraq could have been responsible. he is either:

(a) Incompetent, since no Iraqi strategic interest would be served by 911 (in fact 911 would be bad for Iraq).

or:

(b) Dishonest, since he knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and played up a hypothetical connection to justify an invasion which had been a pet project of his advisers for 10 years.

You cannot dress this up by saying that the US has plans to invade various countries. They do, but the facts speak to more than that going on here.

	21-04-2004 23:25									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by rah A desire to do something and actually doing it are two different things. I agree that there is ample information that there was a desire, but it wasn't DONE right away. So I don't consider it that big a deal. Having plans updated for invading a country that we have had a decade long record of conflict with seems the sensible path. During the cold war, how many plans do you think we had for the USSR going around? It doesn't mean we were planning on using them, just being prepared.

The connection is that 911 allowed them to fulfill that desire. Rumsfeld and company have wanted to invade Iraq for years - they just needed a political excuse. 911 was that excuse.

	21-04-2004 23:27									#14
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It's not so much that they did it, it's that they lied about saying the decision to declare war on Iraq was made in 2003, and then they've been lying since then to protect that lie, attacking former staffer after former staffer when those staffers out the Administration. This Admin has a serious hate-on for the truth.

Well, there was always the possibility that Saddam could have gotten a bit of sense and decided to chow down on a little Texas longhorn, rather than duke it out with us. Bush et al are playing it semantically - the final decision to go to war couldn't have been made much before all the forces were in place, but anyone would have to be naive and utterly clueless to think Bush didn't have special plans for Saddam from even before he got elected.

At this point, BFD. Saddam's gone, and we've got a different can of worms to play with now.

	21-04-2004 23:28									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Agathon The connection is that 911 allowed them to fulfill that desire. Rumsfeld and company have wanted to invade Iraq for years - they just needed a political excuse. 911 was that excuse.

If that one hadn't come along, something else would have.

	21-04-2004 23:28									#16
	Support Apolyton

notice how they are focusing on only one out of like 10 points. does silence mean guilt?

	21-04-2004 23:37									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

No

	21-04-2004 23:50									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Well, there was always the possibility that Saddam could have gotten a bit of sense and decided to chow down on a little Texas longhorn, rather than duke it out with us.

Do you mean in 1990 or in 2003?

As I recall, Hussein was bending over backwards to try and comply with the ultimatum given him by the Prez (except the last one to get out). They simply didn't have the means to acount for stuff that had gotten lost over the years. After all, it's not like the U.S. doesn't have tons of lost/missing/unaccounted WMDs.

But as LoA points out, this is really a sidetrack. The point isn't that they made the plans. The point is they made them then said they didn't and have been attacking those that outted them as liars. What's the problem with admitting the truth (except at this point having denied it for so long it would expose their duplicity).

	22-04-2004 00:54									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

I still don't get it.
Asking for updated plans is not the same as saying the decision had been made to do it. Thinking about doing it and deciding to go ahead are also two different things.
Judging the difference seems to be speculation, and that's all I've heard here. No proof of lying. Just speculation. I'm sure GW has wanted to knock Saddam off for a while(probably since daddy didn't finish it off). But when did he make the decision to GO.

	22-04-2004 00:59									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Can you get this?

quote: # Former British ambassador Christopher Meyer confirmed that "President Bush first asked British Prime Minister Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after" Sept. 11.

Again, this isn't really the point. The point is that once this information was revealed, the Administration and its suporters went into full attack mode, calling O'Neal, Clarke, Meyer, etc. all liars.

	22-04-2004 01:56									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

No, so what if he was trying to drum up support. Testing the waters. That doesn't mean he had committed to it. He may have wanted it. That's still a gray area and if someone is saying that it was a done deal and it wasn't, then he was speculating. (I wouldn't consider it lying if that's what they believed)

	22-04-2004 02:07									#22
	Tired of ads?

It is not that hard of a concept to understand.

People are not mad that they asked for updated plans.

THEY are only mad because they lied about asking for updated plans. If someone soon after 9-11 asked, "have you given orders to update Iraq war plans?", and the administration said, "yes". There would be no controversey.

It is because they (bush) repeatedly bashed people who said that bush gave the order for updated war plans in Iraq.

Whether that in itself is a valid concern or not, that is up to the individual. But it makes you think that if they lied about that, something simple and not harmfull as this, what else they may have lied about?

	22-04-2004 02:20									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

About 2 years ago I was making a Rum and Coke, really it's a Roy Rogers and Rum (I like a little Grenadine in it), while my wife was on the phone. Now, the liquor cabinet, which I rarely visit, is above the fridge, and as I was reaching for the rum I knocked over the Grenadine. Anyone who has ever spilt grinadine knows how sticky it is, and that it isn't the easiest thing to clean-up.

Anyway, most of the grenadine spilt on the top of the fridge and was oozing down the back of it. So, I pulled the fridge out to get back there to clean it up. As I did this the water line, that normally feeds an ice maker if you have one (and I don't), got snagged under the fridge and tore, sending water flowing all over the floor.

I called for my wife to help or we would have a flood in the kitchen, and like most women told me to clean up my own mess. So, what did I do?

Freaked out, asked for help, got denied

I then Freaked out some more, before getting my vice grips and pinching of the water line (those vice grips are still there by the way)

I then got the mop and cleaned up all the water and glass that was on the floor.

I then grabbed a sponge and took care of the grenadine, which was the problem to begin with.

Why am I telling you this? Because that is what the Bush administration did.

They freaked out (the first few days after 9-11), addressed the current most addressable problem (Afganistan), took care of that (or at least pinched the line and left the vice on it), asked for help, got denied, got the mop, and took care of the problem that caused the water to leak in the first place (Iraq, supposidly).

Still, I blame a lot of people for putting the Grenadine on the fridge in the first place! That was an accident waiting to happen... Crap! I put that bottle there

	22-04-2004 02:51									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

However Iraw really is not the problem, sure it was good to free the people of Iraq, but still Iraq was not the source of the problem.

If anything, Iraq with saddam was good at not allowing terror. Do you really think Saddam would let someone like Osama hide in his country? Or do you think Saddam would allow for the crazy Islamic fundamentalist? Of course he wouldn't, because it would eat away at his power. Now that Saddam is gone, you constantly hear about the clerics in Iraq and their dislike of the U.S. and in some instances encouragement to resist agains the U.S.

	22-04-2004 02:54									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Do you mean in 1990 or in 2003? As I recall, Hussein was bending over backwards to try and comply with the ultimatum given him by the Prez (except the last one to get out). They simply didn't have the means to acount for stuff that had gotten lost over the years. After all, it's not like the U.S. doesn't have tons of lost/missing/unaccounted WMDs.

Sure they had the means. By not kicking out inspectors and playing games in the first place. It really wouldn't have taken that much work on Saddam's part to comply with all of the operative post GW1 UNSCRs, then sanctions would have had to be lifted, and ol' Saddam would still be in power. He was just too busy playing his "Baby Milk Plant" brand of horseshit fun and games.

	22-04-2004 02:56									#26
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

But MTG in spite of all that, and in spite of Saddam being a mass murderer and all, SURELY he has been seriously and unfairly misunderstood!

He must have had bad parents or something.

	22-04-2004 02:57									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Again, as Che is saying, the problem is that the admin. told the American people and the Congress that it would "give peace a chance" in a way, and that war was not sure. IF the admin. had made the decision to go to war before going to congress in October 2002, then it essentially misled congress.

And it did not need to-it could always have gone to congress and said removing Saddam was already US policy, we are going to remove it, give us the support, blah-but they didn't for political reasons-and they misled the congress and the people that congress represents, even if people don't care anymore.

	22-04-2004 02:58									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Do you really think Saddam would let someone like Osama hide in his country?

Yes.

quote: Or do you think Saddam would allow for the crazy Islamic fundamentalist?

Saddam WAS a crazy islamic fundie!

quote: because it would eat away at his power.

Not really.

quote: Now that Saddam is gone, you constantly hear about the clerics in Iraq and their dislike of the U.S. and in some instances encouragement to resist agains the U.S.

Thanks for proving my point.

quote: He must have had bad parents or something

Not really. I think he was raised by his grandma and uncle, or something.

	22-04-2004 02:59									#29
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

But as rah pointed out, making plans and testing the waters with Britain does NOT mean that the decision to go to war had been made.

	22-04-2004 03:01									#30
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui But as rah pointed out, making plans and testing the waters with Britain does NOT mean that the decision to go to war had been made.

The ambassador did not say testing the waters-in other comments (all of this to Vanity Fair) he basically states the decision was made by mid-2002.

As someone on Hardball said, basically people are quibling between when a decsion was made, and when it was exectuted.

Again, Bush wanted regime change-there was no compromise when it came to regime change-even if Saddam left volutarily, the US military would have hqad to go in.