Is it really Clinton's fault?

Great Debates
1

Every time the “War on Terror” is criticized by a liberal, concervatives argue that we wouldn’t have the problem in the first place if Clinton had done something about Osama.

I was in elementary school when Clinton was elected, so I don’t really know much of the specifics about much of his presidency, nothing compared to what I know about present politics.

Through what I’ve been reading lately, it seems to me that Clinton wanted to do more but was unable. I should make clear that “more” is not necessarily “a lot.” I’m not trying to prove that Clinton was a saint. I generally think that everyone in Washington is untruthful and coniving to some extent.

The 9/11 report says that Clinton wanted to do more, but had to deal with the Lewinsky situation (I believe it’s chapter 11 on imagination). Jeffrey Sachs in the book the End of Poverty mentions several times that the Clinton administration wanted to help him, but they couldn’t (to be very vague). Even while he basically calls Clintons administration a bunch of pansies, Mike Shuer in Imperial Hubris doesn’t seem to blame Clinton nearly as much as Bush (to be fair, I have both of his “anonymous” books, but I have not finished them, I’m reading them now even though I’ve had them both in my possession for quite some time).

I’m just curious, is it really a valid claim to blame Clinton for the 9/11 attacks? If so, what didn’t he do?

Again, I want to make clear that I’m not trying to exonerate Clinton, I just want some input/perspective.

2

To me Clintion was short sighted in his policies and we will be paying this price for many years to come. I believe that BC saw OBL as a threat and would have loved to have taken him out, but wanted to do it in a discrete, or even police like way. When the Saudies offered OBL Clinton refused as he couldn’t find a ‘leagal’ way to take him.

As if BJC was responsible for the attacks on 9/11, only if the Port Authority is responsible for the attacks. OBL had declared war on the US, we ALL underestimated him, and I can’t fault Clinton for ‘allowing’ the attacks.

3

Cite?

Read Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies for the full inside story, from the guy who was in charge of the effort.

4

Absurd. Hindsight is 20/20. Clinton did not have a crystal ball. He may not have acted perfectly, but he acted perfectly reasonably.

5

There really is no way of knowing. It is possible that if Mr. Clinton had dealt with OBL we might be better off. It is possible that someone else would have stepped in and filled the empty space. It is all speculation.

6

This is just more pundit spin, right from Rush etc. Blame Clinton for everything and anything. Blame him for whatever Bush does too. Never mind that it all fell apart after he left office, never mind that on one hand the neocons were pushing him to attack Iraq and on the other hand were telling him that OBL wasn’t important.

7

I certainly don’t think it’s fair to place all the blame on Clinton. I would place the blame on him, congress, the intelligence community, and even the American people. Most people simply didn’t take the threat of terrorism seriously enough. I remember thinking in 1993 after the WTC bombing, “Man, those guys can’t even bomb a building correctly.” I don’t believe enough people took the threat seriously enough and in the end we paid the price for it.

Marc

8

ElvisL1ves you ask for a cite, then admit you know about it - WTF!

9

But just incase you misplaced your copy of the book, you can check out this:

from http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm
which looks like it was taken from
The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

10

No, I asked for a cite for the claim that the Saudis offered Osama to Clinton. You don’t have one either, right? Okay, I’ll give you a hint: It didn’t happen - he was in Afghanistan. Let’s see why the OP thinks otherwise, shall we?

11

Appears we cross-posted. Your “cite”, just to establish its credibility, starts “Through Apathy, Incompetence, a Compromised and Corrupt USDOJ INS and Frivolous Use of the Military, the Clinton Administration Makes America Vulnerable to Terrorism”. Okay then … It also claims Clinton claims it as the “biggest mistake” of his Presidency, when he’s made it quite clear that his failure to act in Rwanda was that.

I *have * read Clarke; have you?

12

Exactly, people think that OBL was the only guy planning everything. If he had been killed, it’s possible someone else would have finished the job on 9/11, and used a dead Bin Laden as a martyr to recruit even more people.

13

And, as everybody knows, if “doj” and “gov” appear in the URL, that means it’s authentic information from the government.

14

Who trained Osama in the first place? When Gorbacev asked the US to stop funding and supporting him so that an independent and stable Afghanistan could emerge free from fundamentalist domination, who refused?

A Republican B-list actor with the attention span of an aphasic rodent.

15

Define “unable.” He had, as a matter of law, all the authority to try everything Bush has.

I’m sure some have said that Clinton could have prevented 9/11, but I personally find that to be kind of 20/20 hindsight. I think a far more worthwhile case can be made that the Clinton Administration had a pattern of path-of-least-resistance responses to foreign policy issues, including Islamism and the Middle East. Critics say that the USS Cole incident, the bombing of the Nigerian embassy, the 1993 WTC bombing and so on should have led to some sort of comprehensive effort to address the growing threat. ObL specifically cited the US (Clinton’s) exit of Somalia as evidence that the US did not have the nerve to take casualties and was a paper tiger ripe for defeat.

On the other hand, it’s quite fair to say that that many of the other possible responses to these events (say an increased US force in Somalia) would have been unpopular with the voters and thus would have faced Republican opposition id Clinton *had * wanted to do them. Note the response to the 1998 missle attack in Sudan – the Pubs were not just saying that it was incompetent and bungled, but at least some of them were saying it was too aggressive and provocative.

Of course, the job of the President is to make the right decisions, not the popular ones. Which is basically my view: with the benefit of hindsight, many of Clinton’s choices were bad ones. But the implication that if the Pubs were in power things would have been handled 100% differently is also little dubious IMO.

16

Under Clinton the person who orchestrated the first WTC bombing was tried in US Federal court and sent to jail.

If would couldn’t convict OBL at the time, what would be the point of getting him?

Clinton, unlike the current adminstration, had a problem with arresting people and not charging them or bringing them to trial or allowing them due process.

If Clinton had grabbed OBL and held him at Gitmo without trail or due process then the Republicans and Democrates would have had a field day. America did not get the rightous anger from the bombing of the Embassies in Africa nor even the USS Cole. They wouldn’t get behind the president because everyone was more concerned about the BJ than OBL.

Clark points that Clinton wanted to put ‘boots on the ground’ in Afghanistan and the Joint Chiefs nixed the idea. He wanted to send in special forces but getting them out of the land locked country without the aid of Pakistan would have been next to impossible.

17

Care to narrow it down a bit more?

18

OBL was indicted, and on the Most Wanted list for the African embassy bombings, so there was a legal basis for bringing him in.
But for the blame game, well, you’ve got everyone involved.

1 - As pointed out, Reagan supplied the Afghan resistance, but the prodding for this started with a Texas Democrat, who’s name I don’t remember at the moment. But this was all standard-issue cold war stuff.
2 - Clinton should have attacked Afghanistan after the embassy bombings, as this was an act of war on US territory - embassies being technically the territory of the country that has them. But this would have required a change in psychology by all of us, where we see the military as a true defense force, rather than an imperialistic plaything to be used in Lebanon, Iraq, Grenada, or Vietnam. We’re prepared to send them to Hell and back for nothing, but to answer an actual attack on our territory? Nah, never mind.

As I pointed out a long time ago, once the Air Force used to have named forces, named for each region of the US that they guarded. But as we got deeper into the Cold War, these were disbanded. One of these, the Eastern Air Force, had its HQ at Stewart AFB, near West Point, and spitting distance to NYC by jet. Had that base still been in operation, it’s at least mentally conceivable that one of the towers would still be standing. But once again, that would take a change in mindset, to where our military is used to actually defend our territory, rather than traipse around the world looking for trouble.

19

I think it goes back farther than Clinton. For there to be a War Against Terror, there has to be terror. ObL didn’t suddenly spring from a vacuum. As I understand it, ObL specifically declared war on the U.S. because we didn’t leave his native Saudi Arabia after Gulf War One. So you could say that GHW Bush is to blame because if he had withdrawn U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia ObL wouldn’a have a beef against us.

But back to Clinton for a moment. We sent troops to Somalia to give humanitarian aid. Then suddenly we’re in a shooting match against the local Big Cheese. We got our nose bloodied. Shortly after the helicopters were shot down, we left. ObL and other terrorists might have thought to themselves: Interesting. We kill a few Americans, and they leave!

Reagan had Marines in Lebanon. A suicide bomber killed over 200 of them by exploding a truck bomb at their barracks while they slept. Reagan pulled our troops out of Lebanon. Terrorists may have thought: Interesting. We kill a few Americans, and they leave!

Carter had the Iranian Hostage Crisis after he allowed the Shah into the U.S. for medical treatment. He wouldn’t give up the Shah (nor should he have, IMO), so Iranian ‘students’ took over the embassy in Tehran. Carter did not respond effectively. When he tried to mount a rescue it turned into a Charlie Foxtrot. Reagan finally got the hostages released through his Arms For Hostages play. Terrorist may have though: Interesting. The U.S. seems unable to deal with us. They’re used to dealing with governments. And they will make bargains.

And there was the Russian fiasco in Afghanistan. We supplied the insurgents and trained some of them covertly. So the U.S. helped insurgents to know how to fight a Superpower.

I think a case could be made that the 1973 Oil Embargo (Nixon) showed people in the Middle East that they could hurt the U.S., even if they couldn’t fight us directly.

And if you go back farther, you have the partitioning of the Middle East under U.S., English, French and Russian control after WWII.

So no, it wasn’t Clinton’s fault. It wasn’t Reagan’s fault. It wasn’t Nixon’s fault, nor either of the Bush’s. It was the fault of all of them, and the Congresses Republican and Democratic, and the fault of other nations as well as our own. We have failed to deal effectively with the Middle East for decades. It’s like stone soup. A stone in boiling water doesn’t make soup. But when you add more and more ingredients, you have a fine soup indeed. I think the terrorism against the U.S. that we see today is the result of decades of failing to understand and communicate and effectively deal with the problems in the Middle East. Lots of ingredients have gone into the pot, and so we now have a meal of Terrorism Soup.

Anyway, that’s my opinion and you’re welcome to it.

20

Tell that to those who argue that everything would be all over if we had gotten OBL in Tora Bora.