Blame Game: Who Took Terrorism Seriously Before 9/11?

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies ^ | 25 March, 2004 | Clifford B. May

[Salem]

Let's grant that Richard Clarke is correct in charging that the Bush administration did not appreciate the urgency of the terrorist threat in the eight months leading up to Sept. 11, 2001. But neither did the Clinton administration in the eight years leading up to 9/11. And neither did the administrations of President George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

And during all the years that Mr. Clarke served presidents of both parties, it's apparent that he didn't get it either.

It's been said before but it bears repeating: The war in which America and other democratic societies are now engaged did not begin on 9/11. For America, it may have begun in 1979 when radical Islamists came to power in Iran and went on to seize our embassy in Tehran and hold our diplomats hostage. A feckless response by President Carter taught the militants a lesson: America can be humbled and, in time, beaten.

Four years later, Hezbollah suicide-bombers slaughtered more than 250 Americans in Beirut. President Reagan responded by pulling out of Lebanon. Another lesson taught: When attacked, flight, not fight, is the likely American response.

It was with these and similar lessons in mind that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. He believed that America would respond only with bluster. Or, he believed, if we did approach the battlefield, we would scamper away at the first sight of blood. As it turned out, US forces quickly crushed Saddam's military machine. But Saddam was left in power. In exchange, he signed agreements he would defiantly violate for the next 12 years.

President Clinton entered the Oval Office in 1993. Soon after, the World Trade Center was attacked for the first time. Mr. Clinton did not go to New York to underscore the significance of that terrorist atrocity. Nor, it appears, did Mr. Clarke advise him to make such a gesture.

That first WTC attack was prosecuted by law enforcement authorities. Suspects exercised their right to remain silent. Under such rules, there could be no serious investigation of what terrorist organization(s) or government(s) may have been behind the attack.

Keep in mind that al Qaeda wasn't formed until five years later. Keep in mind that the key conspirator, Ramzi Yousef, entered the US on an Iraqi passport and that a second conspirator, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Iraq where he was harbored by Saddam Hussein – a longtime host of terrorists of many stripes -- and where he reportedly cooperated with Saddam's intelligence.

That does not amount to proof that Saddam was involved in the 1993 attack. But then we have proof of hardly anything because in those years neither the President nor the Congress was willing to give the intelligence community the tools and latitude needed to deal with terrorism. What's more, law enforcement and intelligence agencies were forbidden from working cooperatively to connect dots. If Mr. Clarke offered a proposal to fix these problems, I can't find it in his book.

What else didn't Mr. Clarke do? After the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia – another example of American forces high-tailing it out of a country after taking a beating -- why didn't he advise President Clinton to shut down Osama bin Laden's  terrorist training camps in Afghanistan – camps that during the 1990s graduated thousands of skilled mass murders?

Mr. Clarke claims he did urge an assault on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan seven years later, after the attack on the USS Cole. But it appears that the entire Clinton cabinet opposed the proposal.

Perhaps most troubling is that Mr. Clarke – the “terrorism czar” -- apparently failed to foresee the possibility that al Qaeda would hijack planes and slam them into buildings, despite what, in retrospect, were ample clues. Had he predicted this type of terrorism, surely he would have recommended that President Clinton put sky marshals on airplanes, arm pilots or reinforce cockpit doors – measures that even a risk-adverse cabinet might have been willing to implement.

Based on the testimony coming out of the 9/11 hearings, it appears that during the Clinton years efforts were made to prevent terrorists attacks from succeeding. But, clearly, there was no strategy for defeating terrorism.

That's apparently why President Bush, soon after coming to office, told National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice he was tired of “swatting flies” and ordered her to conduct a “policy review” and craft what Secretary of State Colin Powell described as a “comprehensive strategy.” That document was delivered to the Oval Office too late to stop the 9/11 terrorists who had been planning their atrocity for several years and who were already inside the US.

A strategy for defeating terrorism is now in place. It shifts from treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem to regarding terrorists as enemy combatants fighting an unlawful war. It involves penalizing regimes that sponsor terrorism.  It includes the targeted killing of terrorists wherever they are. It deals with the root causes of terrorism: the lack of freedom, democracy, prosperity and opportunity in so many Arab and Muslim countries – not least Iraq.

No doubt, it's not a perfect plan. And if Richard Clarke or anyone else has better ideas, by all means let's hear them and discuss them with open minds. But it is counterproductive – and just plain wrong -- to let partisanship and politicking interfere with what should be our main task: defeating the terrorists, the ideologies and the movements waging war against all those demonized as infidels.

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

 

 

[Salem]

This is going to have to be a drive by posting. I have to get to an open house. I read this in our local paper which, as I have pointed out before, has a leftist bent. Note well, I noticed they edited out the last paragraph from their version!

I don't know much about the author so if he is some globalist, cut me some slack. Still, the underlying message is that the War of Terror is definitely a non-partisian issue, and if current polls on Bush's support are true, as compared to Kerry, the Democrats will go down in flames by down-playing the terrorist threat and undermining the Bush Administration's firm response to it.

Needless to say, it was long, long overdue and has put me solid in the Bush camp on this critical issue in contemporary political domestic and national affairs.

"...President Bush, soon after coming to office, told National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice he was tired of “swatting flies”..."

AMEN Mr. President!!

[GailA]

Cliff is one of the good guys. Nashville talk host Steve Gill has him on frequently. He pulls no punches.

[Salem]

'Ping!'

[Mike Darancette]

For a Democrat a Non-Partisan issue is one which their party finds itself on the wrong side of.

[Diogenesis]

[USF]

I've written something like this before, but I think it's time for a recap..

Lets just say.. for arguments sake that they DID know something was going to happen... but before 9/11 with the prevailing mentality of the Clinton years still in place to treat murderous Mulims fanatic waging a jihad against the "Darul Harb" as a law enforcement problem and not a WAR... without catching them committing any crimes, what can you do? say that they even had the time, place and date, list of names etc. Then what? They storm the planes on the tarmac and grab all 19 nice middle eastern muslim men.

The lefties, multicultis, CAIR, ACLU, and the vile crowd at Democratic Underground would be creating a sh!t storm that we were "profiling" or harassing these poor Mulsims because of their appearance. What proof would we have had? Boxcutters? They were not illegal at the time. Flight manuals? They were taking flying lessons! Qurans? How dare anyone accuse a deeply religious Muslim! Death cult headbands? Are you implying that this Islamic attire has something to do with murder? And so on...

If we said that they were going to be suicide hijackers flying their planes into skyscrapers they would have said that this was nuts. Illogical. We crazy neo-cons watch to much Fox and other TV and hollywood movies and can no longer tell fiction from reality.

The 19 would have to be released. If they were kept in jail the same clueless twits that are doing the whining today, back then would be whining about US concentration camps... Lack of trial. lack of evidence. The UN crowd and Amnesty International would say the French were coming round to accepting it if we just produced more evidence, and let them out on bail in the meantime... Kerry and the Dem crowd would say Bush lied.. we were duped.. etc...

Any attempt to improve airport security and impose the checks we have seen after 9/11 would have been resisted by airlines and airports on economic grounds, and by muslim passengers waving their crying children in front of CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera cameras, saying how they were "discriminated against" because they were asked to step aside for a random check, and we would have to strip search every Irish grandmother just to prove we were not profiling, and some folks would still complain....

This travesty would go on and on until, one day, another carefully synchronized bunch of Muslims board fully fueled airliners...

[expatpat]

The aim of the Demo'rat asssetions of Bush 'inaction' is not so much to hurt Bush, but to try to innoculate Clinton and the Dem'rats from criticism for their bumbling and cowardice by invoking the "everybody does it" defense.

[lainde]

bttt

[Salem]

"Cliff is one of the good guys. Nashville talk host Steve Gill has him on frequently. He pulls no punches."

Oh, good, and thanks for letting me know! I was concerned about his background and didn't want to end up on FReeper "time out" in the corner with the pointy hat on my head while other FReepers shot rhetorical spitwads and rubber bands at me!  

[Salem]

I wanted to say thanks for writing this commentary on this thread. Didn't want you to think I forgot.

This is one of the most logical conclusions to come to in light of current American politics.

You don't mind if I copy this for future use when the question comes up (I'll make sure it is attributed appropriately).

[USF]

Sure, go ahead! You might want to correct a typo or two though.... "Mulims", "Mulism" etc... Hehe..

PS.. Sorry been very busy lately and not had the time to check in (as you can tell, I've been rushing replies, typos, 'n all).

PPS. Thanks :o)