CNN.com - Ex-Bush aide: Iraq war planning began after 9/11

A second former Bush administration official is set to accuse top presidential aides, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, of planning retaliatory strikes on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, despite briefings from intelligence officials explaining that Iraq likely wasn't responsible.

The accusation from Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism official at the White House until February 2003, will come first in an interview on CBS News' "60 Minutes" set to be broadcast Sunday, the network said.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill made similar accusations on "60 Minutes" in January.

Although O'Neill said the Bush administration began planning an Iraqi invasion just after taking office, Clarke said Bush's top aides immediately sought to use the terrorist attacks to levy a war against Iraq even though it appeared that al Qaeda, not Saddam, was responsible.

"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," Clarke said in the CBS interview that was conducted as part of the promotion for his book.

...

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq ... We all said, 'but no, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan,'" Clarke said in the interview. "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 [the September 11 attacks].'"

Wow... great reporting CNN. No kidding... the White House had plans to take out Iraq before 9/11? That's remarkable news, given that Bush made a tougher stance on Iraq a major part of his 2000 campaign and mentioned it in at least one Presidential debate. It's also remarkable that in the days following 9/11 the White House discussed possible enemies who might have attacked us and that our old friend Saddam Hussein came up as a possiblility. And, finally, its fascinating that Rumsfeld stopped us from going to Afghanistan because there weren't "any good targets." Oh, wait... we did go there.

So, what's the news here? Somebody wants to sell another anti-Bush book, and that's about it.