Saturday, March 20, 2004
Is Bush really the anti-terrorism president?
Richard Clarke, anti-terrorism advisor to Clinton, and then Bush through September 11, says no.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
This story should get a lot of attention and scrutiny. On domestic issues, Bush has a history of relabeling his old policies as appropriate for every new problem that comes up (tax cuts fix everything). It increasingly appears this is the case on foreign policy too (whatever the problem, invade Iraq and put up a missile shield). Here's Clarke:
Is it any wonder we have caught Saddam but not bin Laden?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
This story should get a lot of attention and scrutiny. On domestic issues, Bush has a history of relabeling his old policies as appropriate for every new problem that comes up (tax cuts fix everything). It increasingly appears this is the case on foreign policy too (whatever the problem, invade Iraq and put up a missile shield). Here's Clarke:
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said "There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan" I thought he was joking.
Is it any wonder we have caught Saddam but not bin Laden?
