# Is it really Clinton's fault? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2005, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791 "2005-11-19T11:00:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/21 "2005-11-19T20:16:27Z")
> [@What the .... ?!?!](#): > > Tell that to those who argue that everything would be all over if we had gotten OBL in Tora Bora. Thing is, TWAT would not have ended, but the Iraq war would have been less likely since then we would had captured or killed the true perpetrators of 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/22 "2005-11-20T03:40:28Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > But just incase you misplaced your copy of the book, you can check out this: > > from [http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton\_&\_Terrorism-01.htm](http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm) > which looks like it was taken from > The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002 That is a bogus site. It is not part of, it is not authorized, it is not affiliated with any U.S. Government agency. Any official government site will be [blahblahblah.gov](http://blahblahblah.gov) Thats blahblahblah DOT gov So, the Department of Justice would be probably [www.usdoj.gov](http://www.usdoj.gov). NOT [dojgov.net](http://dojgov.net) Trying to put up this other bogus site as a government site is deliberately false. It is purposeful misrepresentation. You should know better than that. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/23 "2005-11-20T03:54:21Z")
> [@What the .... ?!?!](#): > > Tell that to those who argue that everything would be all over if we had gotten OBL in Tora Bora. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Thing is, TWAT would not have ended, but the Iraq war would have been less likely since then we would had captured or killed the true perpetrators of 9/11. This is just spill-over from that other thread, about could/should Bin Laden have been captured at Tora Bora. My position was he should have been caught and could have been caught. Along with that, my position was that his “escape” was either a monstrous screw-up, or he was not supposed to be caught. Now then. If he had been caught, then there would be no way to claim a BinLaden/Iraq terro link. As we now know, there never was any such link - until we invaded Iraq and made it “terror central”. Anyway, I had many many cites of Bush/Republican flip flops as to OBL’s importance, and many many cites explaining how we blew the capture. I got no counter cites, just more questions and what-abouts and what-ifs. Very unsatisfying. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/24 "2005-11-20T08:51:27Z")
If the Republicans had a plan, and were stymied by Clinton’s lack of action, they had from January to September to have done something about it. This is not saying it would have been successful, but what action against ObL did we see? What response was there to intelligence about threats, like the famous August memo? Plus, you remember of course the deadly attack on LAX at the Millennium. You don’t? That’s because Clinton actually took an interest in a threat, and showed doing something about it was important, and it actually got stopped - with no more good intelligence than we had about 9/11 at the beginning. But I guess he should have been clearing brush instead, if he was a real man. Finally, you might remember the words Wag the Dog. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/25 "2005-11-20T16:31:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Finally, you might remember the words Wag the Dog. I saw _Wag The Dog_. When it came out I thought it applied to Clinton very well. Shortly after the BJ scandal the bombing started in Yugoslavia. _Wag The Dog_ also started with a sex scandal, only the ‘war’ was fake. I have _Wag The Dog_ on DVD. Although Duhbya was not involved in a sex scandal, the film seems even more applicable to the actions of the current administration. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/26 "2005-11-20T16:39:09Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > 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? Wasn’t it the Pakistanis who trained Osama in the first place? US funding went to other mujhadeen groups. And I wouldn’t call the Afghan puppet state the Soviets set up “independent and stable”. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/27 "2005-11-20T18:23:59Z")
Over the last century, there have been any number of fringe groups out there trying to attack Americans or do other dastardly things. None of them actually ended up blowing up into a major threat to the country. Asking why Clinton didn’t do more is the same as asking why Nixon didn’t do more against the Black Panthers who might have spawned a terrorist revolution. By the time his presidency was over, however, we were beginning to realize that Al Qaeda was a major threat on a new scale, and Clinton was distracted and slow to respond, mostly leaving things to the next administration instead of launching new iniatives to hand them. Unfortunately, we had just elected a bunch of militarily incompetant nincompoops who didn’t know the first thing about anything other than media control and took months to school up in the ongoing situation. By then it was too late. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/28 "2005-11-20T19:18:10Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Trying to put up this other bogus site as a government site is deliberately false. It is purposeful misrepresentation. You should know better than that. Who was making the claim that [dojgov.net](http://dojgov.net) was a US Government website? I don’t think anyone posting here nor the operator of the [dojgov.net](http://dojgov.net) website is attempting to fool anyone. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/29 "2005-11-20T19:43:17Z")
First of all, the blame lies with Al Quaeda and its operatives, and no one else. The problem, however, goes back at least to Carter, and maybe before. The fact is that American politicians were very slow to react to Middle Eastern events. Even in the Cold War it was considered a tertiary interest. It definitely came after Europe, the Far East, and probably Latin America. And that applies to both us and the Russians. Carter and Reagan set a bad precedent, followed by both Bush (I) and Clinton. The policy was not to overtly interfere in the ME, not to retaliate against attacks, and not to demand justice. This… was a mistake. Each one did behind-the-scenes work, but failed to make a clear, forthright effort to change the way things were going. Of course, this is understandable if not laudable. The Middle East seemed unimportant. It was a den of tyrants but they were usually too busy squabbling amongst themselves or fending off internal opponents to cause a major regional ruckuss. It was always cost-effective in the short run to cut and run. And up recently their societies were running reasonably well on oil money, which limited the appeal of terrorist groups. The problem is that things got worse, not better. Socially speaking, the dictators slowly began driving their economies into the ground: witness Iraq and Saudi Arabia. People could have dealt with the poverty, but combined with widepsread political repression, meant that young people saw no future or hope. More to the point, what a blow it was to the pride of these young men to see their elders act so viciously and so greedily. What a blow it was to see the once-great cities of the ME fail. Essentially, the people of the ME had nothing else to turn to except violence and fundamentalism. Everything else was forbidden; Islamicism is the only escape, the only path to power and pride. Few, relative to the population as a whole, took the path, but it was about the only alternative to despair. > [@](#): > > 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? Osama wasn’t supported by the U.S., and a lot of the Mujahadeen, while arch-Conservative by our standards, were and are not friendly to Al Quaeda and the Taliban. They’re tribal, not sociopathic. The second line makes no sense at all. He never was fundedby us (not to a great degree, though I’ve no doubt he grabbed a few dollars here and there). And it wasn’t dominated by fundamentalists until after the Soviets withdrew and the cashflow stopped. That’s when the internal war began, and we didn’t really interfere there. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/30 "2005-11-20T20:37:40Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > Who was making the claim that [dojgov.net](http://dojgov.net) was a US Government website? I don’t think anyone posting here nor the operator of the [dojgov.net](http://dojgov.net) website is attempting to fool anyone. I’ll back off. I may have been reading an intent that was not there. I probably screwed up and jumped when I shouldn’t have. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/31 "2005-11-21T03:32:26Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > 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! George Bush started our mission in Somalia as well … although one could argue that Clinton could have, I guess, pulled out of both those placed, although who knows what people would have said about his leadership then! (Pull out too soon and be called a coward, don’t pull out soon enough and you’re an adventuring boy-king, even though you didn’t start the mission!) ---
**Author:** ![Caractacus\_Pott](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@Caractacus\_Pott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caractacus_Pott)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/32 "2005-11-21T03:36:39Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > I think it goes back farther than Clinton. > \ > > Anyway, that’s my **opinion** and you’re welcome to it. Johnny, I thank you for it. You’ve stated my opinion in a much more coherent manner than I. So many problems facing us today have roots in the past. I hope we’re not doomed to repeat history because we’re ignoring it again… ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/33 "2005-11-21T18:44:52Z")
> [@](#): > > First of all, the blame lies with Al Quaeda and its operatives, and no one else. This is morally and logically untenable utterance. If a man rushes at a woman with a knife, your response as someone with a drawn gun is not morally neutral. If the woman is killed and the killer escapes, you cannot escape blame for events unfolding as they did. That’s because we can consider events from different stances, crediting each actor with responsibility for their chosen actions or inactions, but seeing the entire event as a combined product of chosen or unchosen possibilities by all actors. Al Qaeda is responsible for choosing to attack the US. But those whos responsibility it is to protect us from such threats are also culpable for their actions, their successes and failures. I suspect, as your following paragraphs pretty much demonstrate, that even you don’t actually believe the sentance above (since you go on to discuss the blame!) But since this trope “only the terrorists are to blame” is often used to attack the character of someone who is criticizing their politicians for failing to defend them, it’s definately worth slapping down wherever it crops up. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/34 "2005-11-21T19:48:12Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > 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. I don’t believe that this is correct. I’m looking for more info … ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/35 "2005-11-21T20:47:50Z")
> [@](#): > > by **Apos** > I suspect, as your following paragraphs pretty much demonstrate, that even you don’t actually believe the sentance above (since you go on to discuss the blame!) Pardon my French, and I mean no offense, but Bullhocky. (Yes, I mean the nastier word). They deserve blame, and they alone. This doesn’t mean that others did not make errors, but I distinguish between kinds of failure. The terrorists are moral corrupt: evil. They deserve blame. They took it upon themselves. Heck, they wallow in it. Our leaders, however, did not make the right choices. Theirs is an intellectual failing, or perhaps a failure of imagination. Perhaps some of them, like Carter, were simply not very good leaders. But it is not a moral failing, ths they do not deserve blame. More to the point, your example is flawed simply because the circumstances are not always obvious. Nor is the proper course of action obvious; they all surely thought they were doing the best thing. I believe they were mistaken, and that they should take responsibility for that mistake, but not that they should shoulder any blame for what happened. If you like, call it splitting verbal hairs, but the English language doesn’t contain sufficient complexity in this area. > [@](#): > > by **acenray** > I don’t believe that this is correct. I’m looking for more info … I’m pretty sure he’s right. An embassy is considered inviolate, and often has its own micro-police force. The laws of host country don’t apply, and its representatives can’t enter unless invited. Even the Soviets never attacked our Moscow Embassy, though they did use various spy devices against it. It’s also why refugees often try and get inside a friendly embassy: ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/36 "2005-11-21T21:28:13Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > I’m pretty sure he’s right. An embassy is considered inviolate, This is not the same thing as being considered part of the territory of the sending country. From the Vienna convention (note this is a treaty so no copyright restrictions apply here): [quote] **Article 22** 1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. … 1. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. [/quote[ The premises may not be entered or searched without permission. It doesn’t say the land occupied by the embassy is considered part of the territory of the state sending the mission. > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 24** > > The archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they may be. > > **Article 27** > > 1. The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes. > … Diplomatic communications may not be interfered with. The diplomatic bag, archives, records, and correspondence are inviolate. This says nothing about ceding sovereignty. > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 28** > The fees and charges levied by the mission in the course of its official duties shall be exempt from all dues and taxes. > > **Article 29** > The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity. > > **Article 30** > > 1. The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission. > 2. His papers, correspondence and, except as provided in paragraph 3 of Article 31, his property, shall likewise enjoy inviolability. The host country can’t enter the grounds or search them or seize things without permission, but there’s no ceding of sovereignty over the territory. It doesn’t _belong_ to the other country and it’s not considered _part of_ the other country. > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 31** > > 1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of: > (a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission; > (b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State; > © an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions. > 2. A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness. > 3. No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic agent except in the cases coming under sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and © of paragraph 1 of this Article, and provided that the measures concerned can be taken without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his residence. > 4. The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State. So there is _personal immunity_ from criminal and civil jurisdiction, _but there are exceptions_. > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 32** > > 1. The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity under Article 37 may be waived by the sending State. > > … Immunity may be waived. Sure, it’s the option of the sending state, but it’s not some permanent and unchangeable condition. > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 33** > > 1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this Article, a diplomatic agent shall with respect to services rendered for the sending State be exempt from social security provisions which may be in force in the receiving State. > > … Diplomats are exempt from the social security system. > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 34** > A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, except: > > (a) indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services; > (b) dues and taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission; > © estate, succession or inheritance duties levied by the receiving State, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 39; > (d) dues and taxes on private income having its source in the receiving State and capital taxes on investments made in commercial undertakings in the receiving State; > (e) charges levied for specific services rendered; > (f) registration, court or record fees, mortgage dues and stamp duty, with respect to immovable property, subject to the provisions of Article 23. Diplomats are exempt from many taxes, _but not all of them_. > [@](#): > > **Article 35** > The receiving State shall exempt diplomatic agents from all personal services, from all public service of any kind whatsoever, and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting. Diplomats aren’t required to perform national service. That’s not a ceding of sovereignty over the territory of the embassy. > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 36** > > 1. The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit entry of and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and similar services, on: > > (a) **articles for the official use** of the mission; > (b) **articles for the personal use** of a diplomatic agent or members of his family forming part of his household, including articles intended for his establishment. > > 1. The personal baggage of a diplomatic agent shall be exempt from inspection, **unless there are serious grounds for presuming that it contains articles not covered by the exemptions mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article, or articles the import or export of which is prohibited by the law or controlled by the quarantine regulations of the receiving State.** … Personal or official articles are to be exempted from **import duties**. That’s not a ceding of sovereignty. Diplomats are not immune from import laws or quarantine laws. So the local laws _do_ apply. > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 37** > > 1. The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in Articles 29 to 36. > > … Extends diplomatic privileges to the family of a diplomatic agent. Does not cede sovereignty over the territory of the embassy. > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 38** > > 1. Except insofar as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, **in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.** > > … Immunity only applies to a diplomatic agent _with respect to his official acts_, not in general. > [@](#): > > The laws of host country don’t apply, > [@Vienna Convention](#): > > **Article 41** > > 1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, **it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.** They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State. > > … The local laws _do_ apply. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/37 "2005-11-21T21:42:44Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > 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. Reagan, aphasic? Do you know what the word means? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/38 "2005-11-21T22:12:01Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > This is morally and logically untenable utterance. If a man rushes at a woman with a knife, your response as someone with a drawn gun is not morally neutral. If the woman is killed and the killer escapes, you cannot escape blame for events unfolding as they did. That’s because we can consider events from different stances, crediting each actor with responsibility for their chosen actions or inactions, but seeing the entire event as a combined product of chosen or unchosen possibilities by all actors. > > Al Qaeda is responsible for choosing to attack the US. But those whos responsibility it is to protect us from such threats are also culpable for their actions, their successes and failures. > > I suspect, as your following paragraphs pretty much demonstrate, that even you don’t actually believe the sentance above (since you go on to discuss the blame!) But since this trope “only the terrorists are to blame” is often used to attack the character of someone who is criticizing their politicians for failing to defend them, it’s definately worth slapping down wherever it crops up. And if any of our leaders had a crystal ball you’d be right. But they didn’t and they don’t, so you’re not. To place any of the blame for 9/11 on anyone other than Al Qaeda is morally reprehensible. No one is complicit in that horror, or has the blood of the victims on their hands, other than the terrorists who perpetrated the murders. To use your analogy: should the woman be blamed because she looked like a easy victim? Should the person with the gun drawn be blamed for not killing the man before the he killed the woman. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/39 "2005-11-21T22:37:17Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > 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. Brilliant post, Johnny. Finally, someone takes off the partisan blinders. It’s short sighted and intellectually dishonest to blame just one political party for all ills. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791/40 "2005-11-22T05:51:53Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > Brilliant post, Johnny. Finally, someone takes off the partisan blinders. It’s short sighted and intellectually dishonest to blame just one political party for all ills. I would add that OBL started out in Africa and the Somali incident was part of the al-Qaeda war against the US. 9/11 was far from the beginning of their attacks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-clintons-fault/331791.md?page=3)