"Clinton warned Bush of bin Laden threat"
Supposedly, during the "exit interview" meeting between the outgoing Bill and the incoming Dubya,
"'...Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence,' Clinton said. 'I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden.'"
Apparently, Bill, you found bin Laden to be such a huge security problem that you did...what, exactly?
Refresh my memory, Bubba, but I seem to remember that a World Trade Center bombing, an Air Force barracks bombing, two embassy bombings, and an attempt to sink a US destroyer all happened on your watch.
So...what did you do, to counter this "[big] security problem?"
For one thing, in your capacity as honorary chairman of a golf tournament held in October 2000, you extolled the virtues of golf as a "gentlemanly" rebuke to those who killed 17 American sailors on the USS Cole.
Yessir, lob some random cruise missiles, blow up an aspirin factory and work on your swing. That'll teach 'em, by god.
While opening the tournament, Clinton declared
...that the course was a no-mulligan zone, outlawing the second-chance shots that he is known to use liberally on the golf links.
Mulligans aren't allowed when attempting to define a historical legacy, either.
Great site. I am promoting you this morning as I speak to 100 high school students about neurochemistry and the human brain.
You have inspired me to take my 30 year old Martin along with me.
John Talmadge, MD
Old Professor
UTSouthwestern Medical School
Posted by: John Talmadge | October 17, 2003 09:01 AM
Now that's a provocative comment.
Thanks for the mention. You've really piqued my curiosity--in what context did A-Head fit into your talk this morning?
(And I'm envious of your Martin...they age so well; I'll have to be patient with my 21st century model.)
Posted by: --Ian Wood | October 17, 2003 10:04 AM
I'm pretty sure folks on here will jump all over me for saying this, but my understanding (fully admitting my left-leaning tendencies) is that Clinton actually was very active, publicly and behind the scenes, in preventing terrorism. In fact, Clinton tried to pass several counterterrorism measures and was largely thwarted by a Congress that didn't recognize his authority and preferred to focus on a stained blue dress.
Here is a speech he gave in frustration in 1996:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/august96/clintonspeech_8-6.html
He also used diplomacy (remember that?) to try to convince Pakistan and other countries to stop their support of terrorism.
In fact, under the Clinton administration a plot to commit multiple terrorist attacks on 12/31/99 at LAX, the Washington, DC airport, and other sites was thwarted:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/Ressam_trial010312.html
According to William Rivers Pitt (see http://truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml):
"Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it 'The enemy of our generation.'"
Also according to Pitt, "the massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place."
Clinton had human weaknesses. But if given the chance, I'd take him back in a millisecond over the folks currently holding the White House who appear to have no coherent plan except for the one concerning their PR.
Posted by: kate | October 17, 2003 11:55 AM
I admit that hindsight is always acute...but whatever Clinton did--and he was in office for eight years--it clearly wasn't enough.
His attempts at diplomacy failed because he was demonstrably unwilling to back them up with credible threat of force--Pakistan's ISI was still a major supporter of terrorism in 2001. Even North Korea took our money and kept right on with its nuclear program; and the agreement with NK was supposed to be one of Clinton's great diplomatic "victories."
Speeches and dossiers are worthless, really, against a threat of this nature, and Clinton never had the political cojones to take the necessary actions.
And, despite Mr. Pitt's assertion--Clinton was very "hands off" regarding security matters. He didn't attend those thrice-weekly NSC meetings.
I wrote about Clinton's hands-off approach, and about Bush's pre-9/11 restructuring of the National Security structure here, in "Of Politics and Paperwork."
Check it out--it's pretty revealing (if I do say so myself).
(Does that count as a "jump?" :-) )
Posted by: Ian Wood | October 17, 2003 12:14 PM
No, it wasn't a 'jump'--so thanks. :)
Clearly our different media sources are providing conflicting information. Maybe like George W. (incurious bastard that he is), I don't have the inclination to try to suss out what is 'correct' using information found on the Web, since I have found repeatedly that one can find info to convincingly back up virtually any position.
That said, even solely considering the events of September 2001, it seems evident that somebody, or rather, a huge combination of somebodies, dropped the ball. Certainly that must include the Clinton administration, the Congress during the Clinton administration, and, yes, the Bush administration.
I read your piece, "Policy and Paperwork," which was indeed interesting. One thing I think should be pointed out, though, is that the fact Clinton was not required to attend those NSC meetings doesn't mean that he didn't attend some or many. Furthermore, it's my guess that having a Pres or VP's compulsory attendance at such a meeting is more symbolic than functional. One could argue that it is not optimal use of highest-level resources to have the President attend daily or thrice-weekly meetings rather than choosing to be briefed by the experts he has appointed in the national security field.
Listen, I think the truth is hard to know. I am pretty sure I could write a kick-ass, fully referenced dissertation showing that Clinton was totally engaged in a war against terrorism. And I'm also sure that you could write an equally convincing text showing the opposite.
Therein lies the challenge. I think that ultimately one believes what one wants to believe.
Personally, I believe that Clinton was hamstrung by a conservative coalition determined to ruin him and his presidency, and that thwarted even the efforts that would have benefited everyone--simply because they didn't recognize his presidency. And I believe their actions had direct negative effects on antiterrorism that contributed to the 9/11 and other attacks.
Pledging blind allegiance to ANY leader is tricky business. I know the picture is clouded with vast and conflicting information, and I interpret it through the filter of my own perception. I suppose, in the end, that's all that anyone can do.
Posted by: kate | October 19, 2003 10:57 AM
PS--Ranking "action" (i.e., military action) over diplomacy is also tricky business. Many of the countries (including NK) that have developed or are developing nukes have done so because they know it will make them largely invulnerable to the type of incursion we made in Iraq. I have seen KIS quoted as saying as much. So do our 'pre-emptive' policies help us or hurt us? I think that is not an easy question to answer. Among other consquences, they will surely lead to increasing nuclear proliferation among countries seeking to escape Iraq's fate.
Posted by: kate | October 19, 2003 11:03 AM
Don't worry, Kate - you're not the only left-of-center (or left-of-the-right) reader here. I just don't comment on the political stuff much, because I'm woefully (and intentionally) underinformed about it, and don't like to sound too dumb.
I do read it, though, because Ian's take on things is usually interesting and well-argued, even when my own opinion is quite opposite, or halfway opposite.
Come to think of it, since the attack on the WTC, I've been unsure of how to describe myself politically. It all seemed to change somehow, but not in any way I can put my finger on. I guess I end up diverging from a standard Democratic position on some things, while still thinking healthcare and the arts would be a better way to spend my money than bombs and tax breaks for the rich. if I ever get rich, I'll probably want the tax break... Very selfish.
Posted by: Valencia | October 19, 2003 05:52 PM
« | Main | »