[quote]vroom wrote:
On a different note, those that seem to complain most loudly about an irrational hatred of Bush by ABB’r types, somehow are the same ones that seem to have an irrational hatred of Clinton.
Isn’t that surprising![/quote]
But isn’t it also equally surprising that most all of the ABBer’s think Clinton was the greatest thing since sliced bread?
Go figure.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That right wing conspiracy is so vast that even Jimmy Carter is part of it. Hell he is leading it![/quote]
I want proof that Carter ever led anything but a Habitat For Humanity crew.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
I am with you here. Stop the political bullshit and win the war against the bad guys.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But isn’t it also equally surprising that most all of the ABBer’s think Clinton was the greatest thing since sliced bread?
Go figure. [/quote]
That’s also true.
Maybe we can make the point that both extreme viewpoints are probably somewhat skewed?
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But isn’t it also equally surprising that most all of the ABBer’s think Clinton was the greatest thing since sliced bread?
Go figure.
That’s also true.
Maybe we can make the point that both extreme viewpoints are probably somewhat skewed?[/quote]
Yes we can. But I’m not going to stop slamming the ABBer’s. I have nothing to do until January - what would I do with my time?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Yes we can. But I’m not going to stop slamming the ABBer’s. I have nothing to do until January - what would I do with my time? [/quote]
You slam them and I’ll slam those that think Bush is a demigod who can do no wrong… (there isn’t much talk about Clinton anymore).
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I have nothing to do until January - what would I do with my time? [/quote]
Leave the dark side and join the good guys. Bashing Bush is more fun and easier than you think.
[quote]tme wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I have nothing to do until January - what would I do with my time?
Leave the dark side and join the good guys. Bashing Bush is more fun and easier than you think.
[/quote]
LMAO. There is no way it can be funner than bashing Clinton or his husband - Hillary.
And it’s not dark - you just have your eyes closed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Clinton claimed there was a republican movement to label him as being obsessed with Bin Laden. Let’s focus on that. Is it true? No, not just a couple republicans. Was there a concerted effort? We have the internet at our disposal, so why can’t we answer this question, and come to an honest conclusion? Post your quotes and article links![/quote]
I think he was referring to the book that was written by his former Secretary of Defense, but nobody likes to read anymore.Or listen to transcripts of the clinton interview
No weapons of Mass Destruction = Words of Mass Deception.
[quote]Skystud wrote:
…Or listen to transcripts of the clinton interview
[/quote]
Listen to transcripts?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As for an exploration on Clinton’s approach to terror, here is a piece of history that gets little play:
On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States usually in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.
None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House. Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates,
President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police, members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator. Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.
The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying. President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.
So, he lets loose members of this terror outfit on the gentlemen’s agreement that they ‘renounce violence’. Then he blocked Congressional investigation of it.
Quick blip on FALN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FALN[/quote]
No wonder there has been such a Republican outcry about Clinton being ‘too hard’ on terrorists. Thanks. This helps point out - not that anyone will see it - how much bullshit Clinton is spouting off now that someone, ANYONE has taken him to task for his embarrassing, inept foreign policy (if there ever really was a foreign policy).
[quote]Skystud wrote:
No weapons of Mass Destruction = Words of Mass Deception.[/quote]
Wow. That’s fucking brilliant. How about ‘Bush Lied Kids Died’ or ‘No Blood For Oil’? Those are good one’s too, right?
It always boild down to a catchy slogan, huh?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Bush has done much more, but of course, with much more sense of urgency to do something following 9/11.
Explain how literally doing nothing is more?
When we KNEW who was responsible for the cole how did Bush respond to the Taliban?
oh and that predator drone?
oh and how about a meeting by the veeps terrorism task force?
oh annd deprioritizing terror?
And true post 9/11 he did so much more by creating more terrorist and new training grounds and motivating a global jihad against us. But see, I personally think he didn’t have to go “quite” that far.
And as dire as the situation is he simply cannot muster the balls to address the issue in Iraq…no dramatic troop increases and no re-deployment. His only urgency was to use 9/11 for political gain by scaring the bejeebus out of the timid like Headhunter, Hedo, and Jeffr. It’s unfortunate that they are so scared that men in caves dictate their lives…pissing all over themselves as they pull the lever in november.
You are blaming Bush for not retaliating for things that happened in Clinton’s admin?
Do you also blame Clinton for not retaliating for things that happened in Reagans admin?[/quote]
Well, the reaction to the cole could have only come from the Bush admin!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As for an exploration on Clinton’s approach to terror, here is a piece of history that gets little play:
On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States usually in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations. None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House. Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police, members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator. Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House. The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying. President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.
So, he lets loose members of this terror outfit on the gentlemen’s agreement that they ‘renounce violence’. Then he blocked Congressional investigation of it.
Quick blip on FALN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FALN[/quote]
Versus OBL at tora bora. Freaking painful.
[quote]100meters wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
As for an exploration on Clinton’s approach to terror, here is a piece of history that gets little play:
On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States usually in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations. None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House. Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police, members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator. Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House. The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying. President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.
So, he lets loose members of this terror outfit on the gentlemen’s agreement that they ‘renounce violence’. Then he blocked Congressional investigation of it.
Quick blip on FALN:
Versus OBL at tora bora. Freaking painful.[/quote]
Bush pardoned bin Laden?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
I keep forgetting what Bush’s response to the Cole was when he KNEW who did it. Oh yeah, now I remember, nothing.
The more you belittle Clinton’s efforts, the worse Bush looks. (Factually Bush did NOTHING—oh well he did keep the newly armed predator grounded till 9/11 but that probably was a bad thing).
Attn: Wingnuts!
Factually speaking:
Clinton: did something.
Bush: did less.(with Clinton’s 8 years as hindsight no less!)
If you’re handing out blame I think there’s plenty to go around for administrations going back at least to Carter.
Your comparison, 100meters, is a bit off – Clinton’s eight years v. Bush’s 8 months (pre-9/11 - and speaking of distracted, any one remember this little item called the Florida recount situtation).
Overall, Bush – not perfect. Clinton – not perfect either. Clinton gets points for recognizing the threat, negatives for not taking decisive action. Bush took decisive actions (how could he not in the face of 9/11), and now we’re arguing over how those actions could have been more effective.
I’m inclined to agree that the argument should focus on how to attack the problem moving forward.
As pure politics, I think this focus only helps the Republicans in '06, but it does not help to focus better on external threats.[/quote]
You get no points in my book for finally trying to close the barn door after the animals have escaped.
Congress worked against Clinton and did nothing before 9/11.
Clinton tried and failed and it is very obvious that Bush did not try except to plan to invade Iraq.
Would 9/11 have been adverted if Bush somehow invaded Iraq by June of 2001?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush pardoned bin Laden?[/quote]
Pretty much.
Good effort vroom, but most of these are too broad. The specific claim was that when Clinton went after bin Laden with the cruise missle strikes into Afghanistan and Somalia that there was a vast right-wing reaction that he was obsessed with bin Laden.
Thus critiques on the Iraq strike aren’t really relevant (and the Iraq strike was weaker in and of itself, given its design so as not to hit material targets or cause material damage – in other words, it looked weak on its face, which may have fueled such speculation as a separate factor that wasn’t applicable to the Afghan/Somali strikes.
Also, trying to tie this in to the al Queda strikes begs the question: Did Clinton think Iraq had al Queda ties?
I also don’t think pointing out that the military was skeptical amounts to the type of critique Clinton claimed, namely that he was “bin Laden obsessed.”
There was some “wag the dog” speculation from the left, the right, and especially the media w/r/t both the Iraq strikes and the Afghan/Somali strikes (moreso with Iraq though) – but to turn that critique into a claim that “the right-wingers were saying I was bin Laden obsessed” seems quite a stretch to me.
As to CNN, this goes against the article I pulled up from the Washington Post that had actual quotes from GOP figures. From a review of contemporaneous sources, it seems that Senators Dan Coats and, to a lesser extent, Arlen Specter, were critical and made “wag the dog” type critiques, and then were criticized from the right and from the GOP leadership for making such critiques. Specter backed off almost immediately. Your CNN article quoted Jim Gibbons, a Republican rep from Nevada, as also being critical w/r/t timing, but it seems he was otherwise ignored and otherwise kept quiet.
ADDENDUM: Obviously the Kosovo stuff was a completely different issue, more relevant as a comparison to Haiti than to comparison of anti-terrorism efforts.
However, I can give Clinton the benefit of the doubt – maybe in his memory all of this rolled together in hindsight, particularly if he personally blamed the “right wingers” in general for being out to get him. But he was still wrong on the particular claim with Wallace.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth,
I don’t know if you’ll accept CNN as a reasonably impartial source?
Cohen Criticizes ‘Wag the Dog’ Characterization
[i]
At that time, some GOP lawmakers used the phrase “wag the dog” to describe Clinton’s military actions, saying he was using conflicts abroad to deflect attention from the domestic scandal. A movie of the same name came out in 1997, and the plot involves a presidential administration that launches a war as a political ploy.
Testifying before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Cohen said the U.S. military was prepared to kill or capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden whenever there was “actionable intelligence.”
But he also said trying to capture bin Laden and his associates was like “mercury on a mirror.”
Clinton came under intense criticism in 1998 by the GOP after he launched an attack on suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. Intelligence indicated bin Laden and his top associates were meeting at a training camp when U.S. missiles were fired at it, just weeks after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
Also, whether there was really so much “wag the dog” going on at the time, a freaking movie came out which certainly would have taken up a large amount of mindshare:
‘Wag the Dog’ Back In Spotlight
[i]
LOS ANGELES (AllPolitics, Aug. 21) – A president embroiled in a sex scandal in the Oval Office tries to save his presidency by distracting the nation with a made-for-TV war far from American soil in an obscure country.
It’s not the latest news out of Washington, but the plot of the movie “Wag the Dog.” In the 1997 movie, a shadowy spin doctor played by Robert De Niro recruits a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to invent a war against Albania.
The film came out just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke – and no doubt benefited at the box office and then at the video store from the publicity. Now, the film is all the buzz again because of President Clinton’s announcement – three days after admitting for the first time an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky – that he ordered military strikes in two countries.
From the moment Clinton went on live television Thursday to announce the bombings in Afghanistan and Sudan, “Wag the Dog’s” producer-director Barry Levinson and producer Jane Rosenthal were inundated with requests for comment.
“The world’s media right now are giving the filmmakers far too much credit for being clairvoyant,” said their spokesman, Simon Halls. “The filmmakers put together a movie that was entertainment, and it was well received, but that’s what it was: entertainment. Anything that is happening in the world today really has nothing to do with the movie.”
But the movie is serving as a reference point in the debate over Clinton’s motivations.
Here’s a great piece, ripping into Clinton for using war as cover…
Did Clinton Lie or Abuse Power in Orchestrating Rationale for Pre-impeachment War
[i]
The Washington Times (12/18/98, p. 1) reports "The White House orchestrated a plan to provoke Saddam Hussein into defying United Nations weapons inspectors so President Clinton could justify air strikes, former and current government officials charge.
"Scott Ritter, a former U.N. inspector who resigned this summer, said yesterday the U.N. Special Commission (Unscom) team led by Richard Butler deliberately chose sites it knew would provoke Iraqi defiance at the White House’s urging.
"Mr. Ritter also said Mr. Butler, executive chairman of the Unscom, conferred with the Clinton administration’s national security staff on how to write his report of noncompliance before submitting it to the U.N. Security Council Tuesday night.
"The former inspector said the White House wanted to ensure the report contained sufficiently tough language on which to justify its decision to bomb Iraq.
“?I’m telling you this was a preordained conclusion. This inspection was a total setup by the United States,? Mr. Ritter said. ?The U.S. was pressing [the U.N.] to carry out this test. The test was very provocative. They were designed to elicit Iraqi defiance.?..”
TIMING IS EVERYTHING
“The White House knew by Dec. 9, when U.N. inspectors were in Baghdad, that the House had planned to debate impeachment as early as Wednesday, Dec. 16. Air strikes began that day.”
EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT CLINTON’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK ON IRAQ WAS A LONG-PLANNED POLITICAL PLOY
Robert Novak points out that (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29) "As Clinton took Palestinian applause in Gaza last Monday [December 14], secret plans were underway for an air strike coinciding with the House impeachment vote. The president had time to consult with Congress and the U.N. Security Council but took no step that might stay his hand.
“As whenever a president pulls the trigger, Clinton’s top national security advisers supported him. But majors and lieutenant colonels at the Pentagon, whose staff work undergirds any military intervention, are, in the words of a senior officer, ?200 percent opposed. They disagree fundamentally.? They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler’s report and consider it politically motivated.”
U.N. VIOLATIONS PROP WAS A CLINTON-SCRIPTED PROP
According to Rowan Scarborough (The Washington Times, 12/17/98, p. A1), "The White House notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sunday that President Clinton would order air strikes this week, 48 hours before he saw a United Nations report declaring Iraq in noncompliance with weapons inspectors, it was learned from authoritative sources last night…
"Pentagon sources said National Security Council aides told the Joint Chiefs to quickly update a bombing plan that was shelved in mid-November and were told that a strike would be ordered in a matter of days.
“Israeli spokesman Aviv Bushinsky said yesterday in Jerusalem that President Clinton discussed preparations for an attack with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just minutes before Mr. Clinton flew home from Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport on Tuesday, ending a three-day peace mission…”
U.S. MILITARY OFFICIALS WERE SKEPTICAL
"Nevertheless, a senior congressional source, who asked not to be named, said senior Pentagon officers expressed great skepticism to him about the raids. This source said that the White House eagerness to launch air strikes grew with intensity as a parade of centrist Republicans announced they would vote to impeach the president, in a vote originally scheduled for today.
Here’s an article on Salon discussing the reaction to the strike…
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/21newsc.html
[i]
Did Bill wag the dog?
After Clinton called out the warplanes, Beltway skeptics said they’d already seen the movie.
BY DAVID CORN | WASHINGTON – It took only a few minutes for one of the reporters in the Pentagon pressroom to ask Secretary of Defense William Cohen the question on many minds: “Have you seen the movie?” He was referring to “Wag the Dog” and the unsettling coincidence between Thursday’s military strikes and a movie in which political fixers concoct a war to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal.
Cohen adopted a steely expression as he replied, “The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people.”
But cynicism could not be avoided. I was eating lunch with a prominent Republican official when his office called to inform him of the Clinton-ordered attacks on terrorist installations in Afghanistan and a supposed chemical-weapons factory in Sudan. The official immediately asked the caller, “Is CNN airing video footage of a young girl running with a kitten?” – a direct reference to a scene in the film. He got up to leave, noting, “Clinton will do anything to get away from Hillary.”
It’s inevitable. After what seems a week of media elites venting about The Speech – and it’s only been three days! – nothing Bill Clinton says can be taken at face value in this town. Some of us have long believed he is a fellow not to be trusted, based on his policy decisions on campaign finance reform, global warming, budget politics, Lani Guinier, welfare legislation, mass murder in Rwanda and other matters. But now the core of Washington’s ruling class appears to have turned on the man, as well.
It’s tough to argue that he doesn’t deserve this. But Republicans ought to be careful about going too far in dismissing Clinton. When Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks – “Why did he wait until now?” – reporters at a press conference (which Coats opportunistically called minutes after the news broke) harshly cross-examined the senator. Didn’t he take Bill Cohen, an ex-senator and Republican with whom Coats served, at his word? Coats had to pause before continuing his anti-Clinton spin.
An excerpt from a Clinton bashing article on Newsmax from 2002, basically rebutting claims that Bush was trying to wag the dog…
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/13/211338.shtml
[i]
Bill Clinton epitomized the concept of “wag the dog.”
The Clintons played each scandal like a volleyball, deflecting one scandal after another by contrived news events and even wars.
Bill Clinton’s 1999 war over Kosovo was perhaps the most egregious use of presidential power to divert the public’s attention and save a presidency.
Remember, when Clinton began the war he had just come out of the Lewinsky scandal, impeachment and near removal from office.
From what looks like an old page on an educational domain, preserving a document from Paul Hager’s run for congress…
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hagerp/PR_warpw.html
[i]
Paul Hager for Congress
For more information contact campaign manager R. David Fisher (812-723-4288 office) or the candidate directly (317-510-3198 office).
Clinton’s “Wag the Dog” problem due to Congressional surrender of war powers.
For immediate release: 30-August-1998
(Bloomington, IN) - “If the President and Congress adhered to the Constitution, no one would be suggesting that the reprisal raids ordered by Clinton were like something out of Wag the Dog.” So says Libertarian candidate Paul Hager, noting the concern expressed in some quarters that the timing and targets of the reprisal raids ordered by President Bill Clinton were motivated in part by his domestic political problems.
Wikipedia has this to say…
–
There were some quick statements by a few republicans, but then the wagons were circled and the politicians themselves appear to have gotten behind Sandy Berger and William Cohen… as points of credibility.
I’m sure I can drag up more. Sloth, if you are willing to concede there was an incredible amount of media speculation, and some republican speculation, then I’ll admit there may have been less actual republican statements… presumably because they didn’t have to say anything.
This would be similar to when the torture provisions were being debated between republicans, the democrats didn’t need to say anything, because republicans were doing the job. Except in this case, the media and pundits were out there doing it.
Anyway, what I would say, is that all the blogs out there which are dismissive, fail to mention all the media coverage, the widespread speculation, and so forth. It’s not hard to imagine that Clinton simply saw it is a right wing thing, the whole wag the dog issue.[/quote]
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
You get no points in my book for finally trying to close the barn door after the animals have escaped.
Congress worked against Clinton and did nothing before 9/11.
Clinton tried and failed and it is very obvious that Bush did not try except to plan to invade Iraq.
Would 9/11 have been adverted if Bush somehow invaded Iraq by June of 2001?[/quote]
I don’t think Congress has ever done much of anything w/r/t the terrorism problem – neither party.
Clinton did not focus on terrorism, and when he did, wouldn’t pull the trigger on any sort of strong tactic.
Here’s an excerpt from an article in yesterday’s WSJ:
[i]By the end of Mr. Clinton’s first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.
? In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched “Operation Bojinka” to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.
? In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.
? In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the “no-fly zones” over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.
? In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: “If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters.” No response from the Clinton administration.
? In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton’s critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.
Still, “Operation Infinite Reach” was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan’s army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan’s links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.
? In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda’s Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke’s objections, policy reverted to the status quo.
? In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.
When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: “What’s it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?”
There is much more to Mr. Clinton’s record – how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy’s natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.[/i]
Bush didn’t pay close enough attention either, and had a laser focus on rogue regimes to the detriment of attention on independent terrorist groups like al Queda. That focus in and of itself wasn’t wrong (particularly if you worry about dispersal of WMD, which you should be worried about), but the neglect of a separate focus on these independent transnational terrorist groups was problematic.
Going forward though, the question is how to deal with both types of problems simultaneously (and particularly when they overlap – see Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbollah, for example). And this focus on the past, to the extent it is a focus on apportioning blame, is not productive in that endeavor.