Clinton's Feckless Anti-terrorism: Don't Forget that Clinton DID "Wag the Dog"!

In the various critiques of Richard Clarke testimony before the 9-11 commission, one fact that has been insufficiently challenged is the truth-or-falsity of the claim that Cinton's one instance of retaliation against Bin Laden was an instance of "wag the dog".

Clarke posits that Clinton's failure to pursue Bin Laden was caused by the "unfortunate" misperception that, because of Clinton's Lewinsky problems, that his actions (cruise-bombing the Afghan camps and Sudan aspirin factory) were intended as distractions. Clarke infers, therefore, that this was a 'false' critique of Clinton, and caused the Clinton administration to back off of its retaliation plans.

And now the criticisms of Clarke fail to nail down the real truth.For example, in Charles Krauthammer's take on Clarke's testimony:

Clinton had one justification after another for going on the offensive: American blood spilled in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the embassy bombings of 1998, the undeniable act of war in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Response: A single, transparently useless, cruise missile attack on empty Afghan tents, plus a (mistaken!) attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

Yes, it was useless, but it was also much worse -- it WAS a case of wag-the-dog, which is probably the most reprehensible thing that Clinton ever did (and that's saying a lot).

Clinton ordered the attack the night before his grand-jury testimony, and the NEXT DAY, the morning of his testimony, Dick Gephart was on national TV saying (as part of a planned political strategy) that the testimony should be cancelled due to the 'foreign events' now occurring. So the DEMS, not the repubs, tried to immediately seek political gain for Clinton.

Remember too that it soon emerged that Clinton never notified the joint-chiefs-of-staffof the attack(!), which adds to the surmise that the White House staff planned the attack, not the military. This explains EXACTLY why the targeting was such a tactical fiasco, and the mistargeting (both in Sudan and Afghanistan) had the effect of strengthening Al Queda.

We should ask: was Clarke "in the loop" for this obvious and obscene mis-use of US military force?

And so my point: why is this colossal travesty from the Clinton administration not properly retold in the critiques of Clarke's attempt to re-write the history of his (and the Clinton's) anti-terrorism "efforts"?

It has been said that Politics is the art of compromise and the science of the possible.

It is all so called “ A War of Ideas.” This is what I believe we are engaged in at the moment.

Mr. Clark’s little revenge / money making book project has been picked up by the Dimocrats as a cudgel to beat down President Bush’s approval ratings.

The facts of X42’s failures in the War on Terror will be conveniently ignored as will all of Mr. Clark’s omissions and inconsistencies as a matter of course because to acknowledge them would be to dilute the effectiveness of the book.

The press is an active partisan participant in this war of ideas. Impartiality is a myth. As it always has been. Objectivity is a lie that the modern press learns to tell it self in college these days.

In the past, before reporters had to go to college, reporters had a much more realistic view of there roll in politics. They knew that the papers they worked for had an axe to grind and they knew that there job was to turn the grind stone.

Today’s reporters still do the same job but they work very hard at self-deception.

I supose we should add wag-the-dog to this list.

ANTHRAX (Clinton News Suppression)

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

If Clinton had not pardon and released 16 convicted terrorist in August, 1999, the message to terrorist world wide would be much different.

If Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000+ people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be Alive today.

3 posted on 10/12/2001 6:38:39 PM CDT by chainsaw

Actually, the Sudan/Afghanistan attacks occured on the same day....August 20, 1998. What's interesting is Clinton's own use of the term "immenent" as a pretext to launching this attack. If, as Clinton states below, that this was an immenent threat, why is it that his WOT stopped after he found out that the attacks failed? I even read a General's statement, who was disturbed that this attack was not followed up by further pressure...as they had them on the run.

Interestingly, it was after this attack that OBL was able to regroup as he called for a renewed Jihad on America. As you read CLinton's rhetoric and realize that he completely understood the danger, his actions that followed this attack were non-existent. Once Monica was done testifying, so was Clinton's short-lived war on terror.

From the Associated Press

Text of President Clinton's statement at the White House on military strikes to ``terrorist-related facilities´´ in Afghanistan and Sudan, as transcribed by Federal Document Clearing House:

"Good afternoon.

Today I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security.

I want to speak with you about the objective of this action and why it was necessary.

Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today.

The groups associated with him come from diverse places, but share a hatred for democracy, a fanatical glorification of violence, and a horrible distortion of their religion to justify the murder of innocents.
They have made the United States their adversary precisely because of what we stand for and what we stand against.

A few months ago, and again this week, bin Laden publicly vowed to wage a terrorist war against America, saying -- and I quote -- ``We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They are all targets.'' Their mission is murder. And their history is bloody.

In recent years, they killed American, Belgian and Pakistani peacekeepers in Somalia. They plotted to assassinate the president of Egypt and the Pope. They planned to bomb six United States 747s over the Pacific.

They bombed the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan. They gunned down German tourists in Egypt. The most recent terrorist events are fresh in our memory. Two weeks ago, 12 Americans and nearly 300 Kenyans and Tanzanians lost their lives. And another 5,000 were wounded when our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed.
There is convincing information from our intelligence community that the bin Laden terrorist network was responsible for these bombings. Based on this information, we have high confidence that these bombings were planned, financed and carried out by the organization bin Laden leads.

America has battled terrorism for many years. Where possible, we've used law enforcement and diplomatic tools to wage the fight. The long arm of American law has reached out around the world and brought to trial those guilty of attacks in New York, in Virginia and in the Pacific.

We have quietly disrupted terrorist groups and foiled their plots. We have isolated countries that practice terrorism. We've worked to build an international coalition against terror. But there have been and will be times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough.

When our very national security is challenged and when we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens. With compelling evidence that the bin Laden network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act.

And so this morning, based on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, I ordered our armed forces to take action to counter an immediate threat from the bin Laden network.

Earlier today, the United States carried out simultaneous strikes against terrorist facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our forces targeted one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. It contained key elements of the bin Laden network's infrastructure and has served as a training camp for literally thousands of terrorists from around the globe.

We have reason to believe that a gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today, thus underscoring the urgency of our actions.

Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan associated with the bin Laden network. The factory was involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons...snip"

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.