Logic Times

Don't Blame the Clinton Administration

Commentary by Aslan, 9/11/06, 7:26pm. Comments (3)

The Path to 9/11 concluding tonight on ABC is riveting, a superb visceral presentation of the root causes of September 11th. Conservatives everywhere are giddy with excitement that a member of the Mainstream Media chose not to whitewash the Clinton Administration’s confused and ineffectual response to terrorism. The actual record of the Clinton Administration – the disaster in Mogadishu, multiple opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden missed, the Gorelick Wall between justice and intelligence – is profoundly worse than portrayed in The Path to 9/11, but the movie nonetheless makes it crystal clear that the Clinton Administration was criminally incompetent in handling terrorism.

But Conservatives need to be cautious in their euphoria; the takeaway from the movie is not that the Clinton Administration was responsible for 9/11, because emphatically they were not. The events, if not the date, of September 11, 2001 were inevitable. The United States with Ronald Reagan as the perpetual President, a young Theodore Roosevelt as Secretary of War, Hoover at the FBI and a fully funded, fully effective CIA would have eventually fallen prey to a cataclysmic attack at the hands of Islamofascists. Without the lesson of 9/11, the American people would never tolerate the draconian measures necessary to prevent the tragedy.

The Path to 9/11 has two important takeaways unrelated to blaming the Clinton Administration:

The first stems from the recognition that pre-9/11 American society was structurally vulnerable; that the people of that society – petulant, prosperous, and deluded by soft years of a pseudo-peace – would never permit the measures necessary to stop a determined, suicidal enemy. Perhaps the September 11th plot of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could have been foiled, but the mixture of Islamofascism, Western freedom and technology was destined to violently explode on American soil. Recognizing this, it is clear that neither the Clinton Administration nor the Bush Administration was responsible for 9/11, debunking once and for all the hysterical attempt by the Left to blame Bush on the heels of Richard Clarke's duplicitous 9/11 Commission testimony.
The second takeaway is that Democrats, being creatures of moral relativism and globalism, are incapable of decisive, wartime leadership. The first three hours of the Path to 9/11 gives a breathtaking glimpse into minds paralyzed by the inability to make judgments. This movie unequivocally demonstrates why the country owes a debt of gratitude to the determination of George W. Bush, and why it should never, ever place the defense of this country into the hands of people like the hacks in the Clinton Administration, hacks who are still out there, hovering, eager to return for a third Clinton Administration in 2008.

{Editor’s Note: I wish I had watched the second half of The Path to 9/11 before posting this commentary. I assumed that the second half would mirror the honesty of the first half, but two areas I found appalling. First, the glorification of Richard Clarke. Did he write this? I no more believe that Richard Clarke had a serious role in government action immediately after 9/11 than I believe Clinton did before 9/11. I certainly don’t believe Cheney and Rice – known entities as confident, solid decision-makers – were indecisive and deferential to the masterful Clarke, a know publicity hound and dissembler. Second, the assumption the 9/11 Commission recommendations were worth the paper they were written on is a more humorous joke. That commission was a whitewash job by the very same people who were exposed in the first segment – the Clinton Administration. I think a grade of NO ATTACKS should be slightly heavier in weight than a grade of what anyone on that commission thinks should be done. That said, there is room for improvement, but I don’t need Jamie Gorelick and Richard Ben Veniste to offer recommendations.}

Comments

1: Scott Malensek

September 11, 2006 07:50pm EST

On the fifth anniversary of the 911 attacks, it’s time to face some facts. 911 DID happen on President Bush’s watch. He was in charge. The fault for letting the attacks happen rests with the top of the pyramid.

The man deserved to be held accountable. Some would have preferred impeachment since it would have offered a partisan chance to avenge the impeachment of President Clinton 8years ago (still perceived by many as having been unwarranted). Lacking impeachment, there should have at least been a national referendum on the Presidency of George W Bush. Oh wait…I’m sorry, there was one. It was the 2004 election.

Rather than voting to remove the man who was in charge on Sept 11, 2001, the American people voted to keep him in office. They saw that the attack was well underway when he took office, and it was too far in motion to stop at the last minute. Regardless of the outcome, his trial by national vote has forced President Bush to account for his actions and his inactions in his first term. The American people chose to re-elect him.

With the blame for HOW the attacks succeeded resolved, people have to ask an even more important question about the 911 attacks. It’s the question that the 911 Commission mentioned, hid in plain sight, and then buried with supplemental data. WHY? We know why the attacks succeeded (or at least 75% of them did), but why were they launched? The answer is as simple as asking, “Why was Al Queda even revived after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan?” Finding the answers requires going back in history, examining the actions of previous Presidents, examining their impact on history, and facing their consequences.

The 911 Commission tells us vaguely why Osama Bin laden revived Al Queda after the Soviets left Afghanistan. They tell us why he started attacking the United States in December 1992.

“He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of

Islam’s holiest sites.”

…

“He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War,“

…

“and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”

-911 Commission Final Report; pg 49

Throughout the late 1990’s-particularly around the time Osama authorized the 911 plot to be set in motion, Al Queda focused increasingly on Iraq. Even Bin Laden experts like Peter Bergen point out that the rhetoric from Osama was becoming increasingly violent from 1996 forward. Of course, Bergen and others can’t fathom why the rhetoric was focusing more on Iraq, becoming more violent, or why each of the Bin Laden’s 1996+ declarations of war came within days of confirmed meetings between Al Queda’s strategic planner, second in command, Dr Ayman al Zawahiri and Iraqi officials (often these meetings took place in Baghdad).

Whenever there was a crisis over UN/Iraq sanctions and/or WMD inspections…Iraq would have a meeting with Al Queda’s #2 man, Bin Laden would declare war again, and/or an attack on the US was set in motion. This happened in 1996, in Feb 1998, in May 1998 (when the African Embassy Bombings were set in motion), and finally in December 1998 (when the 911 plot was finally authorized by Bin Laden).

History-like hindsight is 20:20. The simple fact is that Al Queda never would have been reborn if President Bush Sr. had invaded Iraq. Al Queda never would have been reborn if Clinton would have invaded Iraq. Bin Laden wouldn’t have been able to declare war based on: the presence of US forces in Saudi (waging air war on Iraq) or the US-lead blockade/sanctions on Iraq (as cited by the 911 Commission). Most importantly, the 911 attacks didn't happen because of an invasion of Iraq-it happened because of a lack of invasion.

Partisan opponents of the President so often want to declare "911 happened on Bush's watch.” It did, but in making that claim, they're ignoring that Al Queda was reborn after Clinton was elected, came to power on Clinton's watch, went completely unchecked on Clinton's watch, and the plot was set in motion during Clinton's watch in response to events that happened on Clinton's watch; things that President Clinton did, and things he failed to do.

When opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom look at Iraq, they somehow seem to think that it's just completely removed from 911 and Al Queda. “Iraq didn’t attack us on 911.” People who make that claim are ignoring that Al Queda was reborn because of the pre-George W Bush war on Iraq; President Clinton’s war on Iraq. Opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom choose to ignore that the 911 plot was set in motion for a reason: as retaliation for President Clinton’s Wag-the-Dog Operation Desert Fox. The 911 attacks weren’t authorized because of President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but because of Clinton's lack of invasion. The 911 attacks were at the very least indirectly related to Iraq, and possibly authorized at the request of Iraq’s intelligence services.

In the 2004 election, President Bush was held accountable for his errors in relation to the attacks, but President Clinton’s role continues to be evaded, ignored, and spun. We know what happened on President Bush’s watch. The attacks took 34 months to go from authorization to calamity. Only 7/34 months were on President Bush’s watch. After five years, isn’t it time we face up to what happened on President Clinton’s watch? Isn’t it time we examined, accepted, and talked about those two years of the plot that happened before President Bush took office? Isn’t it time we asked what happened to revive Al Queda and set the 911 plot in motion?

{Aslan: No question Clinton’s Administration was a joke and, for far more than just terrorism, a disaster for this country; but a disaster that was akin to seeds planted – the fruits of Clinton’s criminal mismanagement, unchecked by the Fourth Estate, have come to flower in this millennium.}

2: Larry Horacek

September 11, 2006 08:00pm EST

Although unintended, the "Gorelick Wall" created by Asst Atty General Jamie Gorelick to implement Bill Clinton's Presidential Directive 24 is a huge chunk of the problem which contributed to failure of our intelligence to pick up on and thwart the 9-11 hijackers. The reasons for the presidential directive were wrong ones, yet it still gives Bill Clinton the cover he needs to deny that he in any way contributed to the disaster. Anyone who really wants to gain a clearer insight to Clinton complicity into 9-11, check out this weblink.

Thanks for the 9-11 remembrance.

{Aslan: Great resource.}

3: AChryssos

September 12, 2006 11:49am EST

I believe that the movie was an eye opener for many in this country. We all know that there were those who hated to see it come to light. I must applaud ABC for sticking to their guns and broadcasting it. No question about it, it makes one shake his head at the ineptitude of those supposedly in charge. My commentary though is directed at the brief 20-20 segment that followed.

Maybe it should come as no surprise that the various lobbies in Washington DC go out of their way to protect their interests at ALL costs for the bottom line. Never mind that this might adversely effect the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Farmers Lobby killed legislation that would’ve made Ammonium Nitrate hard to buy. Wall Mart is fighting tooth and nail to stop the inspection of shipping containers which I believe will be the next way that these animals will attack our country. Wall Mart’s argument is that it will cost too much money to delay their shipment for even 1-2 days.

The one that I have a real problem with is that the cargo on passenger jets does not get inspected. Again the Commerce Lobby states that delaying these shipments will cost companies too much …money!!! So then, it is OK for the rest of us to be put through the ringer when traveling by plane, but for all of that a bomb could be in the cargo bay and nothing is being done about it?

It is time that we all step up to the plate, open our mouths and emphatically state that enough is enough. We ALL must bear the burden EQUALLY for the war that is on our doorstep and for once put our personal and corporate interests aside and do what is RIGHT!!!

{Aslan: I believe that the will to change, like with an alcoholic hitting bottom, can only come with greater and greater assaults. September 11th motivated us to a heightened level of security, but not to compromise business as usual. When a nuclear bomb goes off somewhere, we will have the next level of impetus for change. The change might not be pretty, though.}