Posted on 03/25/2004 2:02:02 AM PST by kattracks
SOME OPPONENTS of President Bush would have us believe that the President fiddled before and after Washington and New York burned on September 11. We know, however, that President Clinton fondled after the World Trade Center burned (in the 1993 attack) and while al-Qaida was plotting against and striking American targets. The Clinton administration’s reactionary approach to al-Qaida was a model of failure, as the 9/11 commission has revealed over the past two days. Nonetheless, some would have us return to exactly that strategy.Testimony and reports given to the 9/11 commission have established that the Clinton administration passed up at least four opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. The administration decided against striking the world’s most wanted terrorist, who had already declared war on the United States, for fear that the intelligence could be inaccurate and that innocents could be killed. One attack was canceled on the recommendation of counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, who has just published a book blasting President Bush for not devoting enough resources to the hunt for al-Qaida.
“Having a chance to get (bin Laden) three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry,” one CIA official wrote at the time.
Those who criticize President Bush for invading Iraq on less than perfect intelligence must keep in mind that Clinton apparently failed to get bin Laden precisely because he refused to act until the intelligence was perfect. Had Clinton acted with the same boldness that Bush did, bin Laden might have been killed three years before the 9/11 attacks. Frustrated with Clinton’s passive response to the terrorist threat, Pentagon officials in 1998 prepared a memo urging Clinton to more aggressively pursue al-Qaida and “take up the gauntlet that international terrorists have thrown at our feet.” Clinton rejected the recommendation.
Had Clinton gone after bin Laden more vigorously, the 9/11 attacks may have happened anyway. As Secretary of State Colin Powell testified, “Anything we might have done against al-Qaida in this period or against Osama bin Laden may or may not have had any influence on these people who were already in this country.”
Bin Laden may have been an unhittable target, but it is inescapable that Clinton, for whatever reasons, failed to recognize the seriousness of the al-Qaida threat in the midst of repeated warnings from intelligence and military officials.
While Clinton passively reacted to al-Qaida’s attacks, then-Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., urged Clinton to declare war on the terror organization. Former Sen. Kerrey now is a valuable member of the 9/11 commission.
We still have a lot to learn about how the Clinton and Bush administrations dealt with the terrorist threat. But it is becoming more and more evident that Clinton was wrong to concentrate on fighting terrorism through legal and diplomatic channels; and Bush was right to switch to a military approach. On Tuesday Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright even told former Sen. Kerrey “you were right” to urge Clinton to declare war on al-Qaida. And yet, John Kerry still insists that this is the wrong approach.
Were Bob Kerrey the Democratic nominee for President this year, America could rest easier in the knowledge that the War on Terror would proceed unabated no matter who wins the election in November. With John Kerry as the nominee, there is much cause for worry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.