Debra Saunders: Swatting at Flies

The San Francisco Chronicle ^ | April 8, 2004 | Debra J. Saunders

[quidnunc]

The national Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States ostensibly has been exploring how the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attacks could have happened and how they might have been prevented. In light of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony Thursday, I, like so many others, have figured out an easy answer: Get the panel to construct a time machine so that all those geniuses who now believe that Sept. 11 easily could have been averted can wave a magic wand and reinvent the past.

That's sort of what is going on anyway. Some commissioners seem to have forgotten what life was like before the Sept. 11 attacks. They're ignoring the fact that the security policies made sense and fit the circumstances, until the circumstances changed. And they're ready to point fingers at Rice and President Bush for not pushing for changes that Americans never would have accepted until after Sept. 11.

Rice began her testimony by citing terrorist incidents that pre-dated the Bush presidency. These included the half-blundered bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, attacks on U.S. installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the 2000 attack on the destroyer Cole. The Clinton administration responded to these attacks by relying on local law enforcement — New York and Saudi Arabian — and the occasional aerial bombing.

-snip-

[anniegetyourgun]

I still say Clinton was swatting at flies....his own fly, in particular.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
37	Nevada	175.00	6	29.17	119	1.47	80.00	4

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Gracey]

And it was Kerrey who in a misplaced statement asked "When did President Bush, ever swat flies" for he wasn't smart enough to pickup that President Bush didn't want to follow Clintonista administration by the continuation of the Clintonista response of "Swatting Flies". Geez, DemocRats are stupid.

[spoiler2]

Here's the rest of the 'fly swatting' story from the article....

"It is now clear that the Clinton response was inadequate. Law enforcement couldn't stop al Qaeda from plotting more violence. The military didn't get lucky and take out al Qaeda. Instead, feckless bombings contributed to the legend of Osama bin Laden who could laugh at America's high-tech weaponry.

That's why, Rice testified, President Bush came to dismiss the Clinton approach as "swatting flies." Too bad it turned out that the Bush response to the Cole attack -- to not swat flies while trying to woo Pakistan -- was inadequate, too.

But in the context of the times, it is not realistic to have expected more from either administration. No one with a memory would suggest that President Clinton could have been considerably tougher on al Qaeda. While the losses at the embassies in Africa were deplorable, al Qaeda had not inflicted enough damage to outrage the American public to the point where voters would accept boots on the ground.

Ditto after the Cole. If Bush had called for war within months of taking office, after a bitter election finale, critics would have called him a warmonger and warned darkly that he was only fueling the fires of Muslim martyrdom. The outrage wasn't there. He would have failed.

Simply put, the death toll hadn't hit the tipping point."

[freeangel]

I believe he had assigned others to do that for him.

[Paraclete]

excellent article. There's a good-sized group of people in this country that believe placing blame is therapeutic. For them, government is looked to as the ultimate guarantor of their security. Unfortunately, the same people are fickle and feckless.

[1066AD]

Good article.

Get the panel to construct a time machine
Calling Dr. Who, can we charter The Tardis ?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

[elbucko]

It is now clear that the Clinton response was inadequate.

Simply put, the death toll hadn't hit the tipping point."

In other words, we couldn't get to Sept. 12th., from Sept. 10th., without going through Sept. 11th. first.

[nmh]

Clinton was too busy unzipping his fly to whores for servicing.

[elbucko]

Caption to photo:

"Condi "bitch-slapped" me with one of my own speeches!"

[baseballmom]

In other words, we couldn't get to Sept. 12th., from Sept. 10th., without going through Sept. 11th. first.

Excellent summation. Americans are very slow to anger, and a war on al Quaeda and terrorism was not going to happen without Sept. 11.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[soxfan]

"Simply put, the death toll hadn't hit the tipping point."

Still hasn't.

And that's the real danger with putting the Democrats in charge, IMO. I am absolutely CERTAIN that a Democrat response to a 9/11 would have been followed by another 9/12, and a WMD 9/13 before they ever stopped taking baby steps and realized that there really are enemies in this world aside from white male Republicans. Boots on the ground are one thing, but in the absence of a strategic deterrent, I don't see a Democrat government taking the extraordinary steps Bush/Ashcroft/Ridge have taken. In fact, the Left considers them Nazis for having done so. Perhaps that is just politics, but I don't think so.

These guys believe in the "Rule of International Law". Whatever the Hell that's supposed to mean. Unaccountable, unelected, irresponsible, and corrupt International Law. But bottom line is, they didn't take bin Laden because they honestly didn't think they had the authority under International Law to take him at they time. And the fact is, they were probably right.

[votelife]

no, Kerrey knew exactly what Bush meant, and that it was a swipe at Clinton, but he tried to spin it and make Condi/Bush look bad.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

If *Klintoon* had put Osama Bin Laden in Gitmo, Irwin Chemerinsky would not have said 'Boo'.

[Indie]

GOOD ARTICLE! bttt

[soxfan]

I wouldn't be surprised if Chemerinsky (he's the USC Law Prof, right?) was one of the guys advising the President he couldn't do it.

[Cboldt]

he [Kerrey] tried to spin it and make Condi/Bush look bad.

I think it was a trap, to get Condi to say that Bush was criticising Clinton. Think of how that might be used by a hostile media. Condi had the presence of mind to keep the blowtorch from turning toward Bush.

[elbucko]

Americans are very slow to anger, and a war on al Quaeda and terrorism was not going to happen without Sept. 11.

I agree. By nature Americans just want to be left alone. But our national success led to an international success that won't permit it. To the contrary, these third world societies find some purpose in their miserable conditions by being at war and perhaps war makes these conditions more bearable. Whatever the answer is, IMO, it will be a paradox. That's why hindsight is 20/20. We perceive problems backwards.

Happy Easter (or Passover), Buck.