Can you condemn Clinton for 'allowing' 9/11 without similarly criticizing Bush?

Great Debates
1

There has been a spate of new books out recently whose entitled purpose is to prove that 9/11 is a direct result of Clinton’s failures to confront Al Queda. These books, of course, are not historical inquiries who set about to examine the issue of intelligence failures in depth. Their clearly stated conclusion is that Clinton is to blame, was in deriliction of duty, and they proceed deliberately and predictably to restate this conclusion, pretty much presenting only what evidence furthers their case, and spending little time presenting evidence that calls into question their conclusion.

Even given the pretty suspect nature of these books however, they have an even more glaring flaw: they spend very little time at all discussing the fact that Bush had at least eight months to do something. When they do mention it, it’s usually only to say that Clinton dropped a mess in their laps.

My question is: does this sort of defense work at all? Can a case be made that Clinton neglected to act when he should have, let things go on too long… but the Bush administration is mostly blameless?

To me, it seems like a pretty hard case to make: if Clinton was to increasingly blame for not acting soon enough against increasing levels of ever more clear and present danger, then the Bush administration did the same as those levels rose even higher, became even more urgent.

Furthermore, the defense that Bush only had eight months doesn’t seem to hold much water given that if the threat level demanded immediate action (to the point where an inactive person should share blame) even during Clinton’s reign, then it continued to do so right after Bush took over. Moral mandates don’t “refresh” just to give a new administration time to get its bearings.

Finally, there is ample evidence that Clinton’s administration DID leave some major decisions in Bush’s lap (and whether this was justified or not is debatable: the Clinton people said that they didn’t want to start a major operation that they couldn’t see through, others might well retort that they lacked the will to start a war on terrorists at all), but they also left clear and repeated warnings to make terrorism and Al Queda a priority, if not THE priority. And there is likewise lots of reason to believe that the Bush administration ignored this advice, not even mentioning terrorism in their list of domestic priorities, leaving the issue churning in endless promised commitee meetings many of which never happened, objecting to increased counter-terrorism funding, laughing off the drive to centralize homeland defense intelligence under a cabinet level position, and so on.

2

Can you give some examples of these books. Just out of interest, as I haven’t really heard anything along these lines.

3

I’m going to cross-post what I put in the Libya thread, since it was off-topic there, and is much more apropos here. (Sorry I’m repeating a lot of what Apos said, but I thought the link might be nice if nothing else):

According to Time Magazine, the Clinton Administration had a comprehensive plan in place to take out Al Qaeda, but didn’t have time to enact it before Bush became president. During Clinton’s term, Richard Clarke had developed a plan which “called for the ‘breakup’ of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped” and:

But it seems that the Bush Administration put the plan on the back burner until it was too late:

Despite Clarke’s efforts to get the Bush Administration to take action, they continued to drag their feet:

Also, Clinton had tried to take out Bin Laden:

And if you read the rest of the article, it makes a good case that Clinton was actually doing a lot to combat terrorism throughout his presidency. It’s pretty obvious that Bush is the one who dropped the ball. For the sake of argument, let’s say Clinton had launched a major offensive in retaliation for the USS Cole bombing, which would have been right before he left office. Does anyone seriously think he wouldn’t have been harshly criticized for doing so as a lame-duck president and dumping a war in Bush’s lap?

4

Bush and Clinton share differing levels of blame. Partisan attempts to attach all the blame to one of them are just that: partisan.

My own opinion is that Clinton had eight years, Bush had nine months. And regardless of whatever failure to pay attention to terrorism prior to bin Laden, it only took one attack to get their undivided attention. Clinton allowed several to happen with the most forceful response being cruise missiles.

This does not absolve Bush for blame in his handling of the war on terror, which I give him a C+ for, nor does it absolve him of his failure to deal with bin Laden in the nine months leading up to 9/11. I just think that more of the blame rests with Clinton.

However, I don’t really attach to much blame to either President. I blame Congress, for hamstringing the CIA, because God forbid they should associate with unsavory people who can give us information that could lead to preventing such attacks. I blame the West in general for making terrorism powerful by giving into it, again and again, throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s. I blame the INS for not adequately enforcing our immigration laws. Most of the terrorists were not even supposed to be here.

5

Are you saying that since all of the attacks during Clinton’s administration happened during Clinton’s administration, Bush’s administration shouldn’t have been aware and reacting to the threat, instead waiting for something to happen on their watch before they made it a priority?

6

I think the career minded attitude of the CIA, FBI and other agencies officials is to blame. Obviously they have become way to politicized and concerned about their own rear ends.

 America became too overconfident and aloof... but the intelligence job demands that they do not lower their guard. Why they thought America was beyond revenge/payback is a matter for another thread (arrogance, illusions of grandeur, too much money ?).

 Clinton and Bush have some guilt in the matter of course... but 50-60 years of US interference and coups should take most of the blame. You can hardly expect post-Cold War presidents to fanthom how much hate and distrust built up during decades in relation to "colonial powers".  The "solution" couldn't be done in 8 years of clinton... nor will it be done by 4 years of military show off by Bush. Takes longer than a single president...

  So the american mind set is as much to blame as anything. Clinton and Bush are just two individuals within a framework that seemed to deny the possibility of major attacks ever happening. This same mind set couldn't grasp the damage being done by US power that creates so much hate and suspicion. The whole govt. apparatus filtering information makes it impossible for Clinton or Bush to really appreciate the dangers involved. So I blame the "system" for a good part of it...
7

Are you saying that since all of the attacks during Clinton’s administration happened during Clinton’s administration, Bush’s administration shouldn’t have been aware and reacting to the threat, instead waiting for something to happen on their watch before they made it a priority?

I already addressed that. Bush is to blame for his part in neglecting the threat. The main difference between the two Presidents is what they did after they made this mistake. Bush got down to the business of destroying Al Qaeda. Clinton allowed attack after attack to occur and did little.

Clinton and Bush have some guilt in the matter of course… but 50-60 years of US interference and coups should take most of the blame.

That is just one of a few reasons that rational people have been trying to project onto these quite irrational people. Al Qaeda doesn’t represent mainstream Muslim opinion, and they certainly don’t represent Latin American, Asian, or African opinion. There were three foreign policy beefs Al Qaeda had with us, according to their own statements.

  1. US support for Israel
  2. Sanctions and bombing of Iraq
  3. US troops in Saudi Arabia

So the american mind set is as much to blame as anything

No, the most blame goes to the mindset of religious fanatics who aren’t living in the real world.

8 
  Would you deny that pre-9/11 America had an illusion of distance and security ? That is a mind set.
 
So if policemen beleive that people should be nice to one another... they shouldn't seek to understand criminals ?  The US gave reason to exist to these fanatics... and therefore they should have been cautious about their potential to attack. The fanatics mere existence was a reason to be on guard...
9 
 Are you comparing USS Cole with 9/11 ? Then its hardly fair is it ? Clinton wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan on the bombing of a warship alone. 

 Also if we consider a real fight against Terror as involving more than military adventures... then how do you know what Clinton did or didn't do ? I suppose the people who do know how much diplomacy, intelligence work and covert cooperation against terrorists happened cannot say so openly due to security breach. We can speculate how much he did or not... 

 Clinton certainly didn't entertain the military means of response as much as Bush does.
10

**Would you deny that pre-9/11 America had an illusion of distance and security ? That is a mind set.
**

That’s connected to our lack of action. The idea that if it didn’t happen on US soil it wasn’t very important.

So if policemen beleive that people should be nice to one another… they shouldn’t seek to understand criminals ? The US gave reason to exist to these fanatics… and therefore they should have been cautious about their potential to attack. The fanatics mere existence was a reason to be on guard…

Understand them to the extent that it makes them easier to kill, yes. These aren’t guerilla fighters representing the interests of repressed peoples. They are religious fanatics fighting for Allah.

**Are you comparing USS Cole with 9/11 ? Then its hardly fair is it ? Clinton wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan on the bombing of a warship alone.
**

That wasn’t the only attack. One thing that I would like to know is why it took until the final months of his administration to come up with a plan to kill bin laden. It almost sounds as if he just wanted to pass the whole deal on to his successor rather than doing it himself. The first confirmed bin Laden attack was on our embassies. An attack on an embassy is universally recognized as an act of war. So why did it take almost two years for Clinton to come up with a plan for winning that war? Bush took two months to plan the invasion of Afghanistan when there werent’ even any plans written up to work from!

Also if we consider a real fight against Terror as involving more than military adventures… then how do you know what Clinton did or didn’t do ?

From what we do know, Clinton did adequately on the defense side of things. A lot more attacks were foiled than succeeded. But no major terrorist leaders were arrested or killed. Few attempts were even made. After each attack, Clinton launched some cruise missiles. Having failed to hit his target, he simply stopped. That means the cruise missiles were symbolic, not serious. If he’d been serious, he would have launched another salvo as soon as he had intelligence of an Al Qaeda camp. Instead, he waited for another attack.

To liken the Clinton strategy to a soccer game, Clinton was playing with a goalie and defensemen, but no offense. The opposing team just kept on coming, and although the defense was good and stopped them more often than not, they still scored once in a while. At the end of Clinton’s term, it was Al Qaeda 3, US 0. Of course, if no attempt is ever made at offense, you can’t win the game. At best you can tie, most likely you will lose.

And then there are the attacks sponsored by Iraq and Iran, also not responded to very well. In Iran’s case, nothing at all was done.

Clinton certainly didn’t entertain the military means of response as much as Bush does.

Not ground troops, but he sure did fall in love with the US Air Force and them Tomahawks.

I think that also may have contributed to Al Qaeda’s belief that although we were powerful, we were chickens. We’d only use weapons that didn’t put Americans at risk. I think it emboldened them.

11

I think adaher you are more impressed by flash and action than silly boring intelligence work ? If you bomb terrorist camps… they simply disperse. Not much intelligence to be gained no ? You presume that ultimately only military action can stop terrorists… which seems not to be the case.

Your soccer comparison should indicate that killing enemy players might mean twice as many might substitute them. So “offensive” playing might not be the solution… though I agree that sitting around waiting for things to get better isn’t a game plan either, nor is blasting away foreign countries.

Once again you just call terrorist “religious fanatics”… I am not debating that… I am debating if the CIA was more worried about their own careers. If these so called fanatics exist … then being on guard is necessary.

12

**I think adaher you are more impressed by flash and action than silly boring intelligence work ? If you bomb terrorist camps… they simply disperse. Not much intelligence to be gained no ? You presume that ultimately only military action can stop terrorists… which seems not to be the case.
**

If the intelligence work has resulted in the killing or capturing of Al Qaeda leaders, that would have been great. Bombing resulted in the deaths of many of them during the Afghanistan campaign. Military action worked where intelligence failed. I’m not saying military action is the only answer to terrorism, but when terrorists are being harbored in a sovereign state, there is no other choice. Intelligence is fine for catching terrorists in Europe and the US, where the local police are trying to catch them just as much as we are. But the only way to get terrorists out of a supporting nation is to first attack that nation.

**Your soccer comparison should indicate that killing enemy players might mean twice as many might substitute them. So “offensive” playing might not be the solution… though I agree that sitting around waiting for things to get better isn’t a game plan either, nor is blasting away foreign countries.

**

Well, the analogy applies both ways. For every American the terrorists kill, they create a few thousand really angry Americans. If it ever came down to a no holds barred war, we would win. But for now, the strategy for both sides is to “score”, politically as well as militarily. I’m sure that the successful WTC attack gained them tons of recruits. I’m also sure that the deaths of several of their leaders hurt them. THeir activities since 9/11 have been rather pathetic compared to the way they were before.

Remember that there isn’t just the matter of recruiting, there is also training and organizing. If we kill the best soccer players, and the subs come in, we’ve gained an advantage. If the opposing team is unable to organize because we keep on attacking, that is also an advantage. Even if Al Qaeda has thousands of people wanting to join them, they first have to find them, no easy task, and then they have to get training, then they have to be sent on missions. So even if Al Qaeda is now doing better on the recruiting side because of our war, if they are doing worse on the training and organization side, we are better off than before.

13

Still you can’t blame Clinton for lack of action… if the moment wasn’t right to act. AQ might have suffered from the strike in Afghanistan… but the Iraq Invasion has given them new power.

 I am not so sure training and organization are so relevant to terrorist activities. Strapping on a belt and then blowing yourself up requires little training. Shooting an AK-47 seems like a common skill in the ME. What matters is getting to the trained engineers and planners.... not so sure their numbers have been reduced that much. They can be recruited more or less "ready" amonst discontent educated youth.

 In the end military action is only a part of the solution... and not that much of one. Either you win politically or not at all.
14

**Still you can’t blame Clinton for lack of action… if the moment wasn’t right to act. AQ might have suffered from the strike in Afghanistan… but the Iraq Invasion has given them new power.
**

I dont’ agree with that. Like I said before, they might have more recruits, but they are getting no opportunities to organize and have little contact with their leadership.

I am not so sure training and organization are so relevant to terrorist activities. Strapping on a belt and then blowing yourself up requires little training

Have to reach your target. That’s not so easy.

**Shooting an AK-47 seems like a common skill in the ME. **

Badly, but yes. But then there is getting an AK-47 to Americans. Easy to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, difficult anywhere else. And in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are facing people who can defend themselves. In that war of attrition, they can’t win. The vast majority of attacks on our soldiers end with them dead and not hitting anything for their troubles.

**In the end military action is only a part of the solution… and not that much of one. Either you win politically or not at all.
**

Yes, but the willingness to fight back is part of winning politically. And no matter what, you have to kill or arrest the diehards.

The political battle for the US consists of bringing democracy to the region. Democracies aren’t known for creating terrorists, at least not as much as tyrannies.

15

I agree that willingness to fight back helps to show resolution and to win the battle… but when you only want to fight and still keep other things the same way… that is a losing battle. The US should show willingness is other things that matter too… like a more balanced relation with Israel… a willingness to confront allied dictators in economic and political ways too. The US is showing a lack of willingness to change in more politically (as far as internal US politics are concerned) dangerous areas. Which bodes just as badly for “winning” the war agains terrorism. If you want only other to change and you won’t mend your erring ways… you can hardly blame others for calling you a hypocrite.

If you try to build a democracy and end up with a bigger mess than before... you are hardly making things better. Intent and plausible results are two different things.

If Iraq in a fantastic turn of events becomes a functioning democracy and not a puppet state… but the rest of the world is being badly hit by terrorism everywhere… that is certainly a bad final result. (Naturally I don’t think the new domino theory about setting up one democracy will push others into democracy too)

I think the US is better off trying other means of "moderating" the Arab world. Forcefeeding Democracy isn't one of them. IMHO.

(BTW Democracies have created terrorists… Germany, Spain and UK)

16

Think of the punching bag President Clinton turned this nation into.

Somalia
USS Cole
World Trade Center Bombing (the first)
Bombing Kosovo (no land troops)
TWO bombings of the Embassies in Africa

What was the end result?
1 Blown up Terrorist Training camp, 1 Aspirin Factory (Sudan), and capturing most of the WTC bombers (the remaining one escaped to Iraq), a shaky Serbia.

Now the WTC gets attacked again and 2 entire countries are toppled. Not a bad system. Bush has suceeded where people like LBJ were afraid to give a go ahead. An all out war with a clearly defined Objective (a principal of War) and Mass (another) was launched against Terrorism and states that harbor terrorists.

Blame Clinton for weakness, because he certainly was.

17

Very good points. I don’t find much to disagree with here, and particular would like to second the statement I bolded.

Has anyone brought up the fact that the first attack on the WTC was in 1993? From this BBC’s article:

18

I would blame the legal mechanism that discouraged and prevented the collusion between internal security agencies and external security agencies. I would also blame any agency head that did not go to bat with obvious information because it would cause “waves” in their own career.

My criticism of former President Clinton is that he allowed a blue stained dress to temper his actions during his final 4 years. He had nothing to lose except public perception. In his defense, it takes an elephant in the room to get anyone to support large-scale war. Can you imagine if he attacked Afghanistan in response to the USS Cole? He would have to eliminate OBL old-style with the CIA (now that would be ironic since the CIA was used to make him). I know Clinton was well aware of the problem toward the end of his presidency because he mentioned terrorism in final speeches.

My criticism of Bush is that he made the economy his first race out of the gate. Same rules apply to elephants in the room. You have to be a tremendous salesman to sell a new war to Congress without a lot of dead bodies to point to. Bush is not that salesman. The presidential transition was not a smooth one and Bush had to assemble his team while standing in the street. I would imagine that alone would have poisoned the well of receptivity to any of Clinton’s advisers (no blame there). To the extent the former President could have influenced the incoming President is a matter of protocol. Briefings would have been given by lower level personnel to other lower level personnel. The fact that a high ranking Clinton era person chose to make the case against OBL speaks well of that person (can’t remember his name).

19

In hindsight, it’s easy to blame Clinton, but you have to remember that had he invaded Afghanistan thus setting back the Al-Qaeda network, and preventing the 9/11 tragedy from happening, we’d never actually know that the tragedy[ b]had** been prevented. Perhaps we’d be debated what waste it was for US forces to be bogged down in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, I think it took a tragedy of the scale of 9/11 for us, as a country, to realize that serious action had to be taken. Very, very few of us could have imagined 9/11 before 9/11. It sounds trite, but we really did wake up to a new reality that day.

20

Of course there was the news articles a few years ago that basically said the Sudanese wanted to hand Bin Laden over but Clinton just blew it off. Here’s one article.(No idea how much substance there is to this claim)
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm