About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NBC's Lauer failed to challenge Bush's suggestion, contradicted by multiple sources, that he "couldn't have" foreseen wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq in days after 9-11 attacks

September 11, 2006 5:40 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

12 Comments

NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer failed to challenge President Bush's suggestion, during an interview broadcast on the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, that he "couldn't have" envisioned at the time of the attacks that a response would include -- in the words Lauer used to phrase his question -- "two full-scale wars, Afghanistan and Iraq." In fact, multiple sources including several administration officials have reported that the Bush administration began planning for an invasion of Iraq before September 11 and discussed retaliatory strikes against Iraq in the immediate hours and days following the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.

From the September 11 broadcast of NBC's Today:

LAUER: Three days after the attacks, you came to New York, what we now call Ground Zero, the site of the World Trade Center. There's that famous moment, you grabbed the bullhorn.

BUSH [video clip]: I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.

LAUER: When you said that, did you have a very clear understanding -- had you formulated a plan in your mind? And did you understand exactly what it was going to take to respond to those attacks?

BUSH: That was not a planned speech. It just came out. There was still smoke. And it was just a -- there was haze. The emotions were unbelievable. There were tears in people's eyes. There was hugging. There was exhaustion. And there was anger. I grabbed that bullhorn and those words reflected my view -- just pure emotion. Which is, we will stay on the offense to protect the country. We had begun to formulate a plan for Afghanistan. But, you know, look, this is a war in which we're constantly having to adjust. My strategy has not changed. The tactics to conduct this war do change. Whether it be in Iraq or Afghanistan or on the home front.

LAUER: At the time when you made that -- those remarks at the World Trade Center, could you have envisioned that the response would include two full-scale wars, Afghanistan and Iraq? The expenditure of some -- by some estimates $450 billion in the overall war on terror and the types of changes that we as Americans have seen in our daily lives over these past five years?

BUSH: You know, those -- that means I've got a pretty good crystal ball if I could anticipate all of that. I couldn't have. But I knew that we were gonna have to be a nation of resolve. And I knew that we were dealing with cold-blooded killers, the likes of which we hadn't seen in a long period of time.

Bush did not respond to Lauer's question directly about whether he could have foreseen two wars. And notwithstanding Bush's explicit reference to plans to attack Afghanistan, at no point in the discussion did Lauer ask Bush about reports that he responded to the 9-11 attacks by initiating plans to attack not only Afghanistan but also Iraq.

Former National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke reported in his book Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror -- What Really Happened (Free Press, 2004) and during a March 2004 interview on CBS' 60 Minutes that President Bush ordered him to find a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11 when Bush returned to the White House after the attacks. Also, according to Clarke, at the same time, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld advocated for bombing sites in Iraq despite Clarke's insistence that "Iraq had nothing to do with" the September 11 attacks. Clarke reported that planning for a strike against Iraq continued on September 12 and the days following.

In addition, an April 20, 2004, Salon.com article by David Sirota cited numerous reports that corroborated Clarke's disclosure that the Bush administration began planning for an invasion of Iraq immediately after the attacks:

CBS News reported on Sept. 4, 2002, that "barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq -- even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks."

The Washington Post reported on Jan. 12, 2003, that six days after Sept. 11 Bush signed an order "directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq."

Former British ambassador Christopher Meyer confirmed that "President Bush first asked British Prime Minister Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after" Sept. 11.

Ambassador Meyer reported on Dec. 2, 2001, that "President Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation" against Iraq that could involve "U.S. forces fighting on the ground."

[...]

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill published documents proving that the president "ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before" Sept. 11 -- an account corroborated by another White House aide.

Sirota's article also noted that Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack (Simon & Schuster, 2004) provided further evidence that the administration began planning for war with Iraq immediately after the September 11 attacks. In Plan of Attack, Woodward reported that Bush told then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice five days after the attacks that military operations in Afghanistan would precede a strike against Iraq, and that Rumsfeld had argued that the attacks represented "an opportunity to take out Saddam Hussein."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jscott (September 11, 2006 5:55 pm ET)
         

      There's your liberal media bias again.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Intergalatic Purveyor (September 11, 2006 5:56 pm ET)
         

      We know Paul O'Neill said that at the first cabinet level meeting by the Bush administration they were talking about Iraq. We know Richard Clarke asked for a cabinet level meeting when Bush first got into the White House to discuss terrorism which never happened until after 9/11 and we know that he thought the administration had been encased in amber for ten years because they kept talking about Iraq. We know many members of the administration were part of PNAC who advocated taking Saddam out in the late 90's.

      But no, Bush had no idea we would be in Iraq. None at all.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (September 11, 2006 5:58 pm ET)
         

      Bush must've been able to foresee war Iraq - according to Paul O'Neill, the Bush admin's top priority, just days after taking office, was the removal of Saddam Hussein . . . what, did W REALLY think Hussein was simply going to leave after Bush ordered him to vacate Iraq "in 48 hours"?

      Oh wait . . . Cheyney did say we would be "greeted as liberators," so I guess that makes it all OK . . . after all, no one could have predicted the breech of levees, either . . .

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ufleirx (September 11, 2006 6:02 pm ET)
         

      I believe it about Afghanistan, because we did not strike sooner. So he was confused, suprise.

      Second, Iraq -- I believe that because that decision was already made before his election, by Cheney, Rummy, etc. So he did not forsee it, it would have been hindsight. Which as we all know is 20/20, but the (Bush Co.) could not even run that correctly. And the Cons on the board are so proud of them why?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (September 11, 2006 6:41 pm ET)
         

      I dont believe Bush could foresee Tuesday following Monday.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bravenewworld (September 11, 2006 7:13 pm ET)
         

      Lately we've been "treated" to the undiluted pain of watching Brian Williams, Katie Couric and now Matt Lauer lobbing softball questions to W and nodding like a bobblehead doll at every inane stupifying non-answer. WHY do they waste airtime like that? It's so tiring to see our "news" become just one long, really long, commercial for the GOP.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by commonsenseliberal (September 11, 2006 7:47 pm ET)
           

        that is what Pathway to 9/11 is...a six hour long commercial for the GOP. Nice.

        I wonder how much the GOP paid for THAT advertising?

        It's all propaganda. It's full of lies, distortions and half-truths.

        It seems that no one in this administration, or their apologists, can tell the truth, let alone be held accountable for telling lies.

        I wonder what would happen if the Left were to start fabricating stories which are opposite to what this administration is spouting. What would happen to the Left if we tried to beat them at their own game? (For the record, I'm not advocating such a thing, but I am curious if we on the Left could get away with it at the astounding rate that the Republicans get away with it).

        CSL

        Report Abuse
    • Author by commonsenseliberal (September 11, 2006 7:43 pm ET)
         

      I think the Downing Street memo proves that Bush was already planning an invasion of Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks.

      Bush lied. Again.

      And there's no penalty for it. I seem to remember YEARS of nonsense, partisanship, impeachment hearings, from the Republican side when Clinton lied. Why isn't Georgie being held to the same standards?

      Any conservatives care to answer my question? I think it is a fair one.

      CSL

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (September 11, 2006 8:24 pm ET)
         

      anything that doesn't involve 9 pm bedtime, vacationing at crawford, bike riding, and scooping up corporate donations by the bucketful.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by joanl (September 11, 2006 9:54 pm ET)
         

      Because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy.

      9/11 sadly gave him the key.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by redking75687 (September 11, 2006 11:58 pm ET)
         

      Didn't Cheney take a little visit to the Middle East right after Bush took office to ask for support for an invasion of Iraq and came back empty-handed? I seem to remember that happening and I got a pretty good memory.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bexter (September 12, 2006 10:55 am ET)
         

      from [link to www.bettybowers.com]

      ...Yes, the unwanted gift (secular democracy) from an uninvited guest (U.S. Marines) is perversely being used to bring about a surprisingly un-American result (majority rule). With mischievous ingratitude, Arabs are capitalizing on the purported mechanisms of "one person one vote" democracy to fill the seats of their local parliaments and condominium associates with more crazed, intolerant religious zealots than are ordinarily seen outside of the United States House of Representatives....

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.