Scotty on Revisionist History
From the White House Briefing Room:Q And then I just have one other question. This morning, he raised an allegation I had not heard before, which is that he says that in the presidential directive which President Bush signed after September 11th, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld requested and received within the four corners of that document, a presidential order to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq. Is that true?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is another example of his revisionist history. As we have said, the President made it very clear that his decision at Camp David was to -- this was in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks -- was to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And we also should keep in context that during this time period, Iraq continued to shoot daily at our pilots and remained a threat to the United States. Mr. Clarke even pointed out, himself, that Iraq was a serious threat. And he talked about Iraq's history in just -- in the recent past. I quoted you some of his remarks yesterday.
Matt's Chat
This is another of the hamsters favorite tricks. When things don't work out in their favor, they change it. Repeat it often enough and people will think it is the truth...somebody evil said that once...who was that? Oh yeah, that evil Nazi Goebbels... Isn't it funny how the hamsters keep trying to make people think that the Bush administration is like Nazi Germany when they are the ones using Nazi techniques? More projection...And then the reporters just can't believe that little Scotty is calling them all on it...
Q But he's making the charge that the President was already directing the Pentagon to prepare plans to invade Iraq.The ad hominem attacks from the Partisan Media (tm) continues...
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but, obviously -- and Mr. Clarke acknowledges, himself, in his recent past that Iraq was a threat. He met -- he sat down and met with Dr. Rice shortly after he left the White House, and nowhere did he raise a concern about the action that we were taking in Iraq. And that was right at the time period when we were confronting the threat posed by -- posed by the former regime.
Q He's right that in October -- in October of 2001, when the President signed this directive, the President was directing the Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, that's part -- that's part of his revisionist history.
Q That's not true?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of his revisionist history, that's what I'm saying --
Q Are you saying it's not true?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, that's right. I am.
Q You are saying that it's not true?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of -- that's just his revisionist history to make suggestions like that. He knows that at that point that our focus was on going -- was on Afghanistan and removing the Taliban and taking away the safe haven for al Qaeda.
Q You are saying from that lectern that he did -- that the President did not sign an order to prepare to invade Iraq at that time?
MR. McCLELLAN: No.
Mark's Remarks
You know, if Bush really were as obsessed about Iraq, I have a question: why did we wait months after 9/11 BEFORE going into Iraq? If it was only Bush as part of this cabal of obsessed people, then why did a VAST MAJORITY of American people in the polls say that Iraq should be next? It seems to me the President was following the will of the American people. And, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror...why shouldn't they have been looked at as being culpable? Again, libs try to spin away logic and common sense, simply for hatred and black helicopter theories.
