November 11, 2003
TOP SECRET. YOUR EYES ONLY.
GENERAL CLARK’S BATTLES. The candidate’s celebrated—and controversial—military career (Peter J. Boyer, New Yorker, 11/10/03)
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Clark said, he visited the Pentagon, where an old colleague, a three-star general, confided to him that the civilian authorities running the Pentagon—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his team—planned to use the September 11th attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. “They made the decision to attack Iraq sometime soon after 9/11,” Clark said. “So, rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to a problem.” Clark visited the Pentagon a couple of months later, and the same general told him that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for the attacks, had devised a five-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.Always eager to help out a General, I've hacked into a secret administration database and now have the carefully concealed evidence of the neocon's secret plot to overthrow Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.If the basic elements of the story have a familiar ring, it is because Clark’s central contention—that the Bush Administration used September 11th as a pretext to attack Saddam—has been part of the public debate, much discussed in many publications and broadcasts, since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of an organization called Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank, whose influential circle—including Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and the defense adviser Richard Perle—had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq, by military force, if necessary, since 1998. That Rumsfeld turned his attention to Iraq almost immediately after the September 11th attacks was reported by Bob Woodward in his book “Bush at War,” published in November, 2002. Clark, in repeatedly telling his account, seems to suggest that he had special knowledge of a furtive Pentagon plan that would have the Administration “hopscotching around the Middle East and knocking off states,” as he put it. He has acknowledged, “I’m not sure that I can prove this yet.”
(I see that Andrew Sullivan has more to say on the inimitable General Clark.)
Posted by David Cohen at November 11, 2003 8:13 PMThis is mendacious beyond words.
Posted by: Peter B at November 11, 2003 8:41 PMI wonder if Hugh Shelton, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Tommy Franks were asked their opinions on whom to fight after 9/11? Maybe Clark is peeved because no one asked him - and remember he got mad when Karl Rove didn't return his calls.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 11, 2003 8:49 PMI don't have the time (or inclination) to read that whole article now, but I have to wonder if the author considered the possibility that toppling the regimes that harbor terrorists has the necessary side effect of toppling (or seriously damaging) the terrorist groups themselves, and therefore, works to solve two problems at once.
Since Bush explicitly spelled this out - "terrorists and those who harbor them" - it would be pretty shoddy reporting to ignore this angle. I did a search for the word "harbor" in the article - 0 occurrences found. OK then!
If a Democrat was in office and took this strategy, the press would be falling all over itself - quite correctly - declaring the policy brilliant and visionary.
Reading Clark's accusation, I find myself simultaneously realizing they're false and wishing they were true.
Posted by: MarkD at November 12, 2003 7:06 PMJeff:
I doubt that. We are losing servicemembers every day, remember.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 13, 2003 6:44 AMMichael - in my mind that is irrelevant - we must not toss aside a strategy due to tactical concerns. We need to change our tactics, not the strategy itself.
You may be right, though, that it would be enough for the opportunists and intelligentsia in the political and media spheres to not support the entire strategy.