I was watching CNN yesterday morning and a commercial sponsored by the liberal Web site moveon.org came on attacking President Bush.
The subject matter of the advertisement was Mr. Bush’s responsibility, or lack thereof, in fighting the war against terrorism. Citing the President’s former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, moveon.org challenged Bush’s credibility in centering his campaign upon contentious achievements in the war against terror.
Leaving aside any ethical argument over moveon.org’s subversion of campaign finance law, it is clear that Richard Clarke’s allegations have resonated throughout the political world.
So far, the administration has offered no compelling counter for Clarke’s claims; in fact, Bush himself said that until 9/11, terrorism was not an “urgent” issue for his presidency.
Instead they have resorted to personal attacks and making dubious use of Clarke’s letter of resignation praising the president.
Vice President Cheney commented that Clarke was “out of the loop” while another White House official was reported saying that “Clarke will never make another dime in Washington.”
But before Democrats start patting themselves on the back, they should remember that if Clinton had been successful in preventing 9/11, Bush wouldn’t have had the possibility of failing.
In everyone’s panic to undermine Clarke’s credibility or exalt him as a hero, they forget that both Democrats and Republicans are implicated in Clarke’s charges. Let’s remember that when asked which administration was the best in terms of foreign policy, Clarke, non partisan, immediately pointed to George H. W. Bush, the tree from which George W.’s apple unfortunately fell quite far from.
I’ve long said that Clinton was a failure against terrorism.
While he picked up where Bush Sr. left off, making strides in asserting America’s global dominance through an active interventionist philosophy, he was completely unsuccessful in tracking down a clearly dangerous al-Qaida. To excuse Clinton by claiming that he “didn’t know” is ridiculous. Al-Qaida tried to bomb the World Trade Center in 1994.
Clinton had six years of first-hand knowledge.
In her testimony to the 9/11 commission, Madeline Albright cited the administrations efforts to bomb Afghan terrorist training camps in response to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
She said her administration did everything it could against terrorism, and at the time of the bombings most people claimed they were doing too much, lobbing missiles during the Lewinsky crisis to divert public attention to foreign affairs.
This is the kind of babble I can’t stomach.
What does public opinion have to do with national security? This is the exact line of thinking that doomed the Clinton presidency. Clinton’s timidity and cowardice when faced with negative publicity was a failure.
Clinton apologists say what they want, but I for one think that Clinton’s failure to act on his many opportunities to kill Bin Laden will forever mar his legacy.
Bin Laden, his crew, and the Taliban should have met their twenty vestal virgins six years ago.
In many ways understanding the Clinton presidency’s failure to act on terrorism is key to understanding the failures of the Bush administration.
The Republicans desperately need to be everything anti-Clinton blinded their foreign policy. During the election campaign, Bush was avowedly anti-interventionist, seeing Clinton’s efforts as impotent in dealing with international problems that were best left ignored or fought by proxy.
This view led directly to a virtual avoidance of Clarke’s suggestions regarding the necessary destruction of al-Qaida. One intelligence official was so worried about an imminent attack that he entertained resigning and going public with his worries.
In addition, there can be no doubt that Iraq (a war I thought and still think was a good idea poorly implemented) has distracted resources from fighting terror. There are roughly ten thousand troops in Afghanistan.
That’s analogous to the populations of Mamou, Ville Platte, and Eunice attempting to control Louisiana.
Who are they kidding?
Responsibility for 9/11
April 2, 2004