On Sept. 11, we were all to blame

Townhall.com ^ | August 7, 2002 | Kathleen Parker

[rwfok]

As President Bush heads off to his beloved, snake-infested Crawford, Texas, ranch for a "vacation" amid criticism that he ought to stay in the even hotter hell-hole that is our nation's capital in August;

And while Time magazine's epic on who-knew-what-when has the left and right bickering over which administration -George W. Bush's or Bill Clinton's -deserves the greater blame for the September 11th terrorist attacks;

I have a question for you: Where were you on Aug. 20, 1998, and what were you thinking about? Here's a clue: Monica.

I pose the question as a reminder that we are our own worst enemy, that nitpicking a president over where he takes a break -or seeking to cast blame for an event that was years in the making -is counterproductive and symbolic of exactly what went wrong.

For on Aug. 20, 1998, the United States launched 70 cruise missiles against Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan (thought to be producing nerve gas with bin Laden's financial backing), in retaliation for the Aug. 7 terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Yet, it is more likely that you (and I) were focused on Clinton's address to the nation three days earlier concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. That, and speculation that Clinton was "wagging the dog" by bombing bin Laden outposts to deflect attention from his personal foibles.

Which is to say, there's more than enough blame to go around, as the Time article clearly conveys. It does not "charge" Bush with delaying a Clinton plan to attack al-Qaida, as some headlines have suggested. Rather it outlines how politics, bureaucratic snags and consistently unruly transitions between administrations all contributed to a colossal failure in Washington -of government rather than individuals -to protect our nation from what clearly were imminent terrorist attacks.

It is true that the Clinton administration came up with a plan to "roll back" al-Qaida, but not until December 2000, a couple of weeks before the Clintons were to depart -a time, you'll recall, when the president was busy signing pardons and executive orders. Clinton spokesmen claim they forestalled action because they didn't want to hand the new administration a war.

When Bush's people were given the plan, officials did what any new administration would do: They studied it. For too long? In retrospect, sure. The plan wasn't approved until a few days before Sept. 11.

But whose fault was it that this clear and present danger wasn't dealt with sooner? Terrorists made threats and attacked American interests several times during Clinton's administration, including on Oct. 12, 2000, when terrorists bombed the U.S.S. Cole.

What did we do? "We didn't do diddly," according to a counterterrorism official interviewed by Time. In a statement that strains credulity, a former senior White House aide told Time: "If we had done anything, say, two weeks before the election, we'd be accused of helping Al Gore."

Long before the election, Osama bin Laden's intentions toward America were clear: -In 1996, bin Laden issued his declaration of jihad against the Americans for "occupying" Saudi Arabia.

-In February 1998, all the groups associated with al-Qaida held a meeting and issued a fatwa: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -civilians and military -is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to."

-Bin Laden called on all Muslims to "confront, fight and kill Americans and Britons."

Should Clinton have done more sooner? Should Bush have trusted the Clinton administration's plan without his own administration's review? If the threats were so imminent, should Clinton have been on the phone to Bush demanding his attention to these matters? On all counts, yes, we can say with the superhuman clarity of hindsight.

And yet, is Clinton entirely to blame? Is it possible that we were too busy -Republicans, Democrats, the media and the public -giggling over grand jury transcripts and images of a semen-stained dress to permit Clinton the resources and credibility he needed to combat a growing terrorist threat?

The truth is, we all deserve a share of the blame, for we all are guilty of allowing less important matters to consume our attention and energy: politics and turf wars in the case of bureaucrats and politicians; a supersized appetite for titillation and voyeurism on the part of media and the public they purport to satisfy.

We all know where we were on Sept. 11, 2001. If we have learned anything from that horrific day, it should be that political bickering and finger-pointing help no one but our enemies. Mistakes were made, brethren. Let's not make any more.

[rwfok]

I didn't see this posted. It has elicited a healthy response on another forum.

[NeoCaveman]

And yet, is Clinton entirely to blame? Is it possible that we were too busy -Republicans, Democrats, the media and the public -giggling over grand jury transcripts and images of a semen-stained dress to permit Clinton the resources and credibility he needed to combat a growing terrorist threat?

I blame the Osama Bin Laden and Islamic extremism for 9/11.

[Lucas1]

We are NOT all to blame...give me a break

[ResistorSister]

For on Aug. 20, 1998, the United States launched 70 cruise missiles against Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan...

Did they hit them?

[mountaineer]

Should Clinton have done more sooner? Should Bush have trusted the Clinton administration's plan without his own administration's review? If the threats were so imminent, should Clinton have been on the phone to Bush demanding his attention to these matters? On all counts, yes, we can say with the superhuman clarity of hindsight.

Wrong. We can say yes, no and yes. There's no way Bush could trust anything the totally untrustworthy, working-against-American-interests Clinton administration came up with.

[RISU]

Even if you disagree with the premuise, it is still pretty healthy.

If someone or something "over there" is to blame, then that is where the opwoer to change it is as well.

The only way we can empower ourselves to find the culprits and punish them is to assume the "we did it" position, and then figure out "how" as a prelude to making chages.

Someone or something definately needs to be "caught up with" on this transaction. We can't have buildings falling down and killing thousands without a reckoning.

We the people need to "answer" this time.

[NeoCaveman]

We are NOT all to blame...give me a break

I repeat

I blame the Osama Bin Laden and Islamic extremism for 9/11.

[dighton]

It has elicited a healthy response on another forum.

I don't know if my response is healthy, but it's quite unprintable.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

This is the purest Democratic Party-line crap.

In 1998, I didn't particularly care about Monica Lewinsky, a stupid California slut- I just saw a chance to get the WORST President in our entire history out of the Oval Office. I was even starting to think that l Gore (AL GORE!) looked pretty good, by comparison to this traitorous pile of dog excrement.<p. Ask me how I REALLY feel.

[Jeff Chandler]

Kathleen Parker has a pretty good batting average, but this time she struck out. It's TIME to quit the blame game and start killing some more terrorists.

[facedown]

When Bush's people were given the plan, officials did what any new administration would do: They studied it. For too long? In retrospect, sure. The plan wasn't approved until a few days before Sept. 11.

I doubt the plan that Bush approved bore any resemblance to the one Clintoon gave him.

[texasbluebell]

We are NOT all to blame...give me a break

Heck, this makes me mad. We are NOT all to blame, the media are to blame for not focussing on what's important, and always going for the easy trashy story, instead of doing some in depth investigative stuff. This really gets me.

Monica wasn't the story, all the corruption in that White House WAS the story.

[wallcrawlr]

that nitpicking a president over where he takes a break

hmmmm...I wonder if I can use that on my wife.
Honey! I need to take a break, I'll be home late tonight.

[Clara Lou]

I agree with you. And why on earth would an incoming President be expected to accept on face value a plan like this from an administration like Bill Clinton's? Or anyone else's, for that matter? If I were POTUS, and I had to take responsibility for executing something like that, I'd have the plan thoroughly examined and altered or trashed.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Clinton is most to blame, with the media and the entire party of democRATS closely behind. If Clinton had possessed the decency to put the welfare of the country ahead of his legassy, (deliberately misspelled, thank you.)and resigned as any normal human would have, Monica would have been forgotten and perhaps a less sex consumed individual would have been at the helm. Without the media and DemocRATS party making molehills of Clinton's neverending range of mountains of immorality and irresponsibility, he would have had no choice but to have resigned.

I accept no responsibility for 9/11, and neither should anyone else. It wasn't our fault that the media considered covering the ass&s of Billy and Monica more important than the survival of the United States. It is not our fault that liberal democrats of the ilk of the author of this trash, still considers concealing or dilluting the utter failings of Bill Clinton as not only a President but as even being human, more important than supporting this war on terriorism, and our responsible, effective and respected Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush.

We don't forget this soon-try again in a hundred years or so.

[revtown]

I'm sorry but if that, character doesn't matter SOB, stainmaster idiot scumbag I can't call president would of showed some restraint when it came to dealing with a childlike bimbo from CA with a crush on him, the country would of been better off and 9/11 might not of happened.

But don't tell me you can't blame him, at least for our distraction in the 90s.

[Mixer]

Islam is to blame. Also the people who put politics in front of our country.

[DoughtyOne]

If the Democrats would have dumped that f-----g a-----e this article couldn't have been written. The replacement President could have done his duty, not his daliance. And President Bush and our nation probably wouldn't have had to face this issue.

[DoughtyOne]

Just where does Gore figure into all this, with his flagrant attempt to import and naturalize upwards of a million new voters without adequate background checks?

[revtown]

Yes, the senate had their chance to correct the problem also. Just think Gore would of taken over in early 98. He probably would of won in 00. He would of taken care of the economy in 00, when BC was running around the world trying to create a legacy instead of running the country. Thats also ironic, BC leaves office ignoring the economy when that was his battle cry in 92.