Since terrorists upped the ante by slaughtering thousands of innocent people on American soil, the devastating effects of eight years of the Clinton administration failed foreign policy have become painfully evident.
Bill Clinton received his first real warning of Osama bin Laden’s threat to the free world when his network attempted to take down the World Trade Center with a car bomb. Despite numerous other warnings from people within his administration as well as additional attacks, Clinton failed to comprehend the capabilities of al-Qaeda.
If you examine Clinton’s foreign policy decisions, a scary pattern begins to develop. Time after time, he preferred to appease world diplomats and state department bureaucrats instead of defending and preserving the United States. Ignoring the emerging signs throughout the world, Clinton did not view terrorism as a priority. George Tenet, director of Central Intelligence, said Clinton only met with the director twice in eight years.
The Sudanese and Mansoor Ijaz who worked under Clinton documented three times when Clinton rejected offers to take custody of bin Laden. He did this even after the initial World Trade Center attacks, the disaster in Somalia, the bombing of the Khobar Tower, the U.S. embassy attacks and the surprise attack on the USS Cole events all linked to bin Laden.
Instead of dealing with the source of the problem, Clinton ordered the military to bomb an aspirin factory and a few empty training camps in Afghanistan, doing no more than creating craters in the desert.
In Richard Miniter’s newly released book “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror,” he documents a discussion held by the Clinton administration following the Cole bombing. Counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke proposed an attack to level every bin Laden training camp and compound as well as key Taliban buildings. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had compiled thick binders full of detailed information on bin Laden’s network, including satellite photographs and GPS bomb coordinates.
Clarke was outvoted 7-to-1 as other administration officials wanted to be consistent with international law, not anger Muslim diplomats or leaders. Some even stated the attack “was not sufficient provocation” for retaliatory action.
Clinton’s spineless appeasement – based foreign policy was displayed to the entire world in Somalia. As anyone who has seen the movie “Black Hawk Down” can testify, our men were sent into a situation with inadequate materials and forces. Then after suffering losses of life, he gutlessly pulled our forces out and signaled to the world that the United States could be beaten back by glorified gangsters.
In an interview with ABC’s John Miller in May 1998, bin Laden said he learned the true resolve of America from the Somalia debacle.
“Our people realize more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run in defeat after a few blows,” he said. “America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”
Beyond allowing Bin Laden and al-Qaeda to roam the world freely while building their resolve through his actions, Clinton left the Bush administration with simmering international disasters.
Strongly desiring to create a legacy, Clinton wasted infinite energy attempting to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But his administration insisted on negotiating with someone the world community now identifies as a terrorist leader, Yasser Arafat.
The list of international gaffs abounds, selling missile secrets to the Chinese, a failed nuclear arms treaty with North Korea and, of course, allowing Saddam Hussein to violate numerous U.N. violations for eight years – all of which have turned into serious concerns for the current administration.
Now the nine Democrats who are vying for the Democratic nomination are attempting to gain political points by attacking Bush and desire to return the country to the glorious time of Clinton’s governance.
The Democratic Party is full of those who apologize for America’s power and want nothing more than to appease the international community. The United States may not survive as a superpower if we elect those who are willing to secede our rights to international bodies that are filled with members who hate our country and the freedom it offers.
In these days where terrorism is a prominent threat and national security is a constant concern, can we really afford to return to the Clinton-esque foreign policy of spineless appeasement?
Ask yourself this question when you hear opponents of the Bush administration assail him as a “cowboy” for his foreign policy. If a “cowboy” is one dedicated and willing to do what it takes to ensure our national security regardless of the political cost, I’ll take the “cowboy” anyday.