A Record Of Failures
Richard Miniter writes a step-by-step timeline of Clinton administration responses to al Qaeda attacks throught the 1990s. It is instructive to look at it and think about the implications of reverting to the Clintonian policies regarding terrorism.
It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.
With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.
In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.
By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
Please read the whole timeline of events. It is a dreadful litany of complete and abject failure. It should rightfully be part of any discussion of how to deal with terrorism. Or rather, how not to deal with it.
By Donna, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 10:19 am
Whoa, Miniter said in his op=ed that “the policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.” I agree with Miniter on this point, but then realized this was a lip service statement when I got to the end of his piece. Miniter only commented on the Clinton years, and ignored the Bush administration.
Miniter ignored that Richard Clarke briefed Rice at the end of January of ‘01 on a developed terrorism plan, Miniter failed to say that the Bush team completely ignored the December ‘00 FBI/CIA finding of Al Qaeda being in fact responsible for the Cole bombing of October, ‘00 and that the US had already a warning in place to the Taliban of bombing them if the sheltered Al Qaeda was found responsible.
By Donna, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 10:24 am
Gauis, you say Miniter’s timeline is a ‘litany of complete and abject failure’. But Miniter himself speaks also of the anti-terror successes of the Clinton years. I think your categorization is a tad hyped.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 10:25 am
I see today is literary criticism day here.
By Nate, Wednesday, 27 September , 2006 @ 11:11 am
Donna, I disagree with your assertion. I think that Gaius was just highlighting the obvious subtext of Miniter’s piece.
By MJ, Thursday, 28 September , 2006 @ 12:27 pm
“He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice.”
Hmm. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that Clinton also successfully hunted down all the perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombing. All this says to me is that instead putting an emphasis on showboating and photo-ops, Clinton put an emphasis on getting the job done.
Who the hell cares whether he vowed this, vowed that, was photographed here, photographed there? Who cares that he didn’t have “brave” photos of himself swooping in on fighter jets, or standing in the rubble? He got the job done. I’d rather have someone do a job than talk all day about it.