Posted on 08/07/2002 3:20:50 PM PDT by 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.
Let's see, how did he put it? Oh yeah...
"When I take action I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."
That summed it up quite well.
I just returned from viewing Ground Zero in NYC for the second time. While it made my heart heavey to think of the innocents slaughtered there, it also made me angry.
I want the President and Congress to send the noble men and women of our military in big machines to inflict lots of damage in all these places: Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, and Libya.
Let them pay the price of the hatred they preach against America and the pain they inflict on the innocent! I want us to be "blamed" for making the world safe for truth, justice, and the American way!
Hmm. President Dennis Hastert.
Nah. The Democrats never would have allowed it. But it would have been nice.
a.cricket
Now that we have settled that, and know who to blame, let's talk about doing something about all of the problems I have caused. Let's try for a solution that does not require a huge government expansion or massive federal spending. These have never solved anything in the past and are not likely to solve anything today.
Take out Saddam fast and soon. Strap a bomb vest on Arafat and tell everyone that it blows when the next homicide bomber acts. Get us the hell out of the United Nations and kick their asses out of New York. Cut taxes and let us decide how to spend money. Get a backbone transplant for the Republicans in congress.
So Clinton gets a BJ, commits perjury, bombs an aspirin factory to try to distract from it, and somehow it's all partially my fault. Sorry, I don't see how those dots connect up.
What did we do? "We didn't do diddly," according to a counterterrorism official interviewed by Time. [...] -In 1996, bin Laden issued his declaration of jihad against the Americans for "occupying" Saudi Arabia.
Yes, and Clinton ignored it. Not "we".
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?
In short: hell no. Why would Clinton have need us not to "giggle" (and I dare say it wasn't "giggling" that I was engaging in upon observing that my President perjured himself) in order to do his freakin' job? What the hell is the author trying to say, that we all need to suck up to Clinton and if we don't then he can't be expected to do his job? What hogwash.
The truth is, we all deserve a share of the blame,
Bullsh*t.
for we all are guilty of allowing less important matters to consume our attention and energy
I still don't know why Clinton needed to draw upon this metaphysical pool of "our attention and energy" in order to do his freakin' job. The job of the Commander-in-Chief is to defend the country. Why the hell should he care whether Joe Public is paying attention to so-called "less important matters"? I don't care if the public's "attention and energy" is consumed by Jerry Springer shows. We pay the man to lead the armed forces and head the Executive Branch, instead he messes around with interns and hides gifts and perjures himself, and it's our fault that he did all this crap and abdicated his responsibility?
Who wrote this, Monica?
Nice sentiments but there's nothing "healthy" about an article entirely devoted to the idea that when a President messes around, lies, gets caught, and then doesn't do his job, his failure to do his job is all our fault for being mad at the lying part.
Take out Saddam fast and soon. Strap a bomb vest on Arafat and tell everyone that it blows when the next homicide bomber acts. Get us the hell out of the United Nations and kick their asses out of New York. Cut taxes and let us decide how to spend money. Get a backbone transplant for the Republicans in congress.
Try not to wake up from that dream you're having.
It'll just be majorly disappointing.
Well, when you think about it, the replacement President would have been Al Bore, and then when 9-11 had happened, what kind of lily-livered response would he have delivered? Maybe shooting another camel in the b*** in a tent, same as old clintoon did.
I'm pretty steamed that this writer is trying to shift the blame from right where it should be, in the laps of 'toon and gore.
Is she blaming all of her peers in the media for focusing on only Clinton's personal shortcomings rather than on his total failure as Commander-in-Chief? Is she blaming politicians and the system for having turned into a monster that is only concerned with survival at any cost? Or, as the article seems to read at first glance, is she blaming us, Americans, for failing to concern ourselves with the big picture?
If it is the latter or any combination that includes us then this is the biggest steaming pile I've read in quite some time. I for one, and I'm confidant that the majority of conservatives, didn't vote for Clinton in either '92 or '96.
When I was inundated with all things Lewinsky, I didn't giggle, I was disgusted and angered. When Americans were attacked and killed by radicals I wasn't distracted by the scandals and impeachment proceedings, I wanted justice and revenge.
No, I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the last administration. Misdirection and finger pointing will not change my mind.
Sorry about appearing to abandon this post, but I'm having network problems. Also, sorry about the lack of a barf alert, but as I stated earlier, I'm just not sure where Parker is going with this.
It required seven plagues from God to get the Pharoh's attention and apparently it will take a similiar number of catastrophes to return the USA to a state of intellectual common sense.
Fortunately, as a people we have prevailed over great adversity in the past so there is every reason to believe we will do it again.
Best regards,
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.