New Charges Trap Bush Camp
Fresh evidence emerged on the weekend that Mr. Bush was determined to pursue war against Saddam Hussein despite the absence of evidence indicating that Iraq possessed usable weapons of mass destruction, or linking it to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Richard Clarke, a former head of counterterrorism at the White House, recounts in a new book that hours after the attacks, key administration members were already talking about reprisals against Iraq.
On Sept. 12, Mr. Clarke says, Mr. Bush asked several top officials "to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." Mr. Clarke, who claims to have spent several years warning the Clinton and Bush administrations to take al-Qaeda more seriously, says he replied: "But Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," whereupon Mr. Bush countered: "I know, I know, but -- see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred . . ." (Parts of his account have been corroborated to U.S. reporters by others.)
Mr. Bush's aides are depicting Mr. Clarke as a man of unrealized ambition taking his revenge, but his core allegations have the ring of truth. Why? Because they fit a pattern whose contours have become steadily clearer throughout Mr. Bush's time in office.
His predecessor, Bill Clinton, has recalled telling Mr. Bush in January, 2001, that Osama bin Laden, not Iraq, posed the greatest danger to U.S. security. Mr. Clarke delivered the same message, at about the same time. But Mr. Bush had populated the higher levels of his administration with officials such as deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who during the 1990s had openly advocated the forcible removal of Mr. Hussein.
Mr. Clarke claims that Mr. Wolfowitz chided him for focusing on Mr. bin Laden, saying Iraq was at least as serious a menace. Mr. Wolfowitz, testifying yesterday to the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, denied slighting the al-Qaeda threat. But we also have the account of Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. He told journalist Ron Suskind that removing Mr. Hussein was on the agenda at the inaugural National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration.
There is evidence that by March, 2002 -- nearly a year before Iraq was invaded -- Mr. Hussein was as good as toast to the U.S. President. According to Time magazine, one of three senators who took part in a meeting on Iraq with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice says Mr. Bush appeared briefly and commented: "F--- Saddam, we're taking him out."
Some time later, Washington cranked up its attempt to persuade the world that Iraq's WMD threat justified war. Americans have begun to grasp what that entailed. A Washington Post/ABC News survey last month found that 54 per cent of Americans believe Mr. Bush exaggerated or lied about the threat. Just 52 per cent thought him "honest and trustworthy," his lowest rating in nearly five years of polling on the question. That is the context, highly unfavourable to Mr. Bush, in which Mr. Clarke's claims have landed.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq detracted from the campaign against al-Qaeda. It has had profound and destabilizing implications for global security. It's hard to see how Mr. Bush could establish the credibility necessary to exercise effective global leadership during a second term.
Fresh evidence emerged on the weekend that Mr. Bush was determined to pursue war against Saddam Hussein despite the absence of evidence indicating that Iraq possessed usable weapons of mass destruction, or linking it to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Richard Clarke, a former head of counterterrorism at the White House, recounts in a new book that hours after the attacks, key administration members were already talking about reprisals against Iraq.
On Sept. 12, Mr. Clarke says, Mr. Bush asked several top officials "to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." Mr. Clarke, who claims to have spent several years warning the Clinton and Bush administrations to take al-Qaeda more seriously, says he replied: "But Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," whereupon Mr. Bush countered: "I know, I know, but -- see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred . . ." (Parts of his account have been corroborated to U.S. reporters by others.)
Mr. Bush's aides are depicting Mr. Clarke as a man of unrealized ambition taking his revenge, but his core allegations have the ring of truth. Why? Because they fit a pattern whose contours have become steadily clearer throughout Mr. Bush's time in office.
His predecessor, Bill Clinton, has recalled telling Mr. Bush in January, 2001, that Osama bin Laden, not Iraq, posed the greatest danger to U.S. security. Mr. Clarke delivered the same message, at about the same time. But Mr. Bush had populated the higher levels of his administration with officials such as deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who during the 1990s had openly advocated the forcible removal of Mr. Hussein.
Mr. Clarke claims that Mr. Wolfowitz chided him for focusing on Mr. bin Laden, saying Iraq was at least as serious a menace. Mr. Wolfowitz, testifying yesterday to the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, denied slighting the al-Qaeda threat. But we also have the account of Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. He told journalist Ron Suskind that removing Mr. Hussein was on the agenda at the inaugural National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration.
There is evidence that by March, 2002 -- nearly a year before Iraq was invaded -- Mr. Hussein was as good as toast to the U.S. President. According to Time magazine, one of three senators who took part in a meeting on Iraq with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice says Mr. Bush appeared briefly and commented: "F--- Saddam, we're taking him out."
Some time later, Washington cranked up its attempt to persuade the world that Iraq's WMD threat justified war. Americans have begun to grasp what that entailed. A Washington Post/ABC News survey last month found that 54 per cent of Americans believe Mr. Bush exaggerated or lied about the threat. Just 52 per cent thought him "honest and trustworthy," his lowest rating in nearly five years of polling on the question. That is the context, highly unfavourable to Mr. Bush, in which Mr. Clarke's claims have landed.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq detracted from the campaign against al-Qaeda. It has had profound and destabilizing implications for global security. It's hard to see how Mr. Bush could establish the credibility necessary to exercise effective global leadership during a second term.
