Qtec
04-11-2004, 10:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the president's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush administration -- not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al Qaeda.
<font color="blue"> Why wasnt it ever mentioned before or in her speech if it was so important.</font color>
But by the time that we got to Camp David and began to plan for what we would do in response, what was rolled out on the table was Afghanistan -- a map of Afghanistan.
And I will tell you, that was a daunting enough task to figure out how to avoid some of the pitfalls that great powers had in Afghanistan, mostly recently the Soviet Union and, of course, the British before that.
There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz. <font color="blue"> Now isnt that a coincidence. Pax Americana. </font color> Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq? There was a discussion of that. <font color="blue"> Why?? There was no evidence that Iraq was involved. </font color>
the president said that he wanted contingency plans against Iraq should Iraq act against our interests. <font color="blue"> Like how? </font color>
There was a kind of concern that they might try and take advantage of us in that period. They were still -- we were still flying no-fly zones. <font color="blue"> had been for the last 10 years </font color> And there was also, he said, in case we find that they were behind 9/11, we should have contingency plans. <font color="blue"> In the light of the recently released memo, no mention of Iraq was made. When 9/11 happened, they knew who was responsible. </font color>
KEAN: So when Mr. Clarke writes that the president pushed him to find a link between Iraq and the attack, is that right? Was the president trying to twist the facts for an Iraqi war, or was he just puzzled about what was behind this attack?
RICE: I don't remember the discussion that Dick Clarke relates. Initially, he said that the president was wandering the situation room -- this is in the book, I gather <font color="blue">As if she and her prep team havent gone over every single accusation in his book. This is a bare-faced lie. </font color> -- looking for something to do, and they had a conversation. Later on, he said that he was pulled aside. So I don't know the context of the discussion. I don't personally remember it. <font color="blue"> How convenient </font color>
But it's not surprising that the president would say, "What about Iraq," given our hostile relationship with Iraq. And I'm quite certain that the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts. <font color="blue">How does she know this?? </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>
The difference between Rice and Clarke is that she is loyal to the President and Clarke is loyal to the US.
Q
This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the president's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush administration -- not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al Qaeda.
<font color="blue"> Why wasnt it ever mentioned before or in her speech if it was so important.</font color>
But by the time that we got to Camp David and began to plan for what we would do in response, what was rolled out on the table was Afghanistan -- a map of Afghanistan.
And I will tell you, that was a daunting enough task to figure out how to avoid some of the pitfalls that great powers had in Afghanistan, mostly recently the Soviet Union and, of course, the British before that.
There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz. <font color="blue"> Now isnt that a coincidence. Pax Americana. </font color> Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq? There was a discussion of that. <font color="blue"> Why?? There was no evidence that Iraq was involved. </font color>
the president said that he wanted contingency plans against Iraq should Iraq act against our interests. <font color="blue"> Like how? </font color>
There was a kind of concern that they might try and take advantage of us in that period. They were still -- we were still flying no-fly zones. <font color="blue"> had been for the last 10 years </font color> And there was also, he said, in case we find that they were behind 9/11, we should have contingency plans. <font color="blue"> In the light of the recently released memo, no mention of Iraq was made. When 9/11 happened, they knew who was responsible. </font color>
KEAN: So when Mr. Clarke writes that the president pushed him to find a link between Iraq and the attack, is that right? Was the president trying to twist the facts for an Iraqi war, or was he just puzzled about what was behind this attack?
RICE: I don't remember the discussion that Dick Clarke relates. Initially, he said that the president was wandering the situation room -- this is in the book, I gather <font color="blue">As if she and her prep team havent gone over every single accusation in his book. This is a bare-faced lie. </font color> -- looking for something to do, and they had a conversation. Later on, he said that he was pulled aside. So I don't know the context of the discussion. I don't personally remember it. <font color="blue"> How convenient </font color>
But it's not surprising that the president would say, "What about Iraq," given our hostile relationship with Iraq. And I'm quite certain that the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts. <font color="blue">How does she know this?? </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>
The difference between Rice and Clarke is that she is loyal to the President and Clarke is loyal to the US.
Q