« Comment Policy Change (Updated And Bumped) | Main | Fat Lady Sings For Berlin Opera That Depicts Mohammed »
Last week I wrote about the futility of the debate about who did what regarding terrorism before 9/11. All sides have once again dragged out their shibboleths all over again, and once again the debate has done nothing to make the nation safer -- but it has at least prompted a fact-checking exercise at the Washington Post. Granted, it comes at the end of the article, but at least someone bothered to do it in a rational manner:
And Jay Carson, a spokesman for Bill Clinton, rejected Rice's contention: "Every single fact that President Clinton stated in his interview is backed up by the historical record -- including the 9/11 commission report. Everything President Clinton said was flatly correct."
Some of Clinton's statements on Fox have drawn scrutiny. He said that after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, "I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan." The Sept. 11 commission, though, found no plans for an invasion of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban, just more limited options such as plans for attacks with cruise missiles or Special Forces. And nothing in the panel's report indicated that a lack of basing rights in Uzbekistan prevented a military response.
Clinton also asserted that the Bush administration "didn't have a single meeting about bin Laden for the nine months after I left office." In fact, the Bush team held several meetings on terrorism through the interagency group known as the deputies committee and one on Sept. 4, 2001, through the principals committee composed of Cabinet officers. What Clinton may have been referring to was counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke's frustration that the principals disregarded his urgent calls to meet sooner because of a months-long policy review.
Rice came under fire for her assertion that "we were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaeda" by Clinton's team. In fact, Clarke sent Rice an al-Qaeda memo on Jan. 25, 2001, along with a strategy to "roll back" the terrorist network, but the Bush team decided to conduct the policy review.
Like I said on Friday: George Bush and Bill Clinton can join a club of five administrations that failed to adequately address the rise of radical Islamism and its root causes in the Middle East and North Africa prior to 9/11. While Clinton ignored a series of attacks on American interests, so did Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. George H. W. Bush helped to provoke the Islamists by basing troops in Saudi Arabia for the Gulf War and then failing to end it quickly by toppling Saddam, forcing the US to keep its troops in the "holy land" of Islam for over a dozen years.
Nothing we have debated has changed any of these facts. Nor, I want to re-emphasize, does it change the fact that the American public would never have agreed to a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan to oust Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Most Americans didn't realize the threat, and while one can perhaps blame the Clinton administration for that, we have since seen the lack of support an invasion attracts minus an outright attack on the United States -- and Saddam Hussein had been firing at our pilots for years prior to March 2003.
Clinton overreacted, and badly, against Chris Wallace, and he told a few whoppers to get the heat off. The Post catches him today in a couple of those. Michael Scheuer, no great fan of the Bush administration, caught him in a few more. For the life of me, I don't see why Clinton -- along with everyone else -- just doesn't admit the obvious. None of them did enough to stop Osama bin Laden before 9/11, and all of them wish now that they had really understood the threat. Placing one another on some sort of hierarchy of futility to prove themselves slightly a lesser failure by comparison would be hilarious if it didn't involves thousands of dead Americans.
We have now had a week of this debate. Does anyone feel any safer because of it?Sphere It View blog reactions
TrackBack URL for this entry is
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Washington Post Fact-Checks A Useless Debate:
» The Liberal Denial Grows from HILLARYNEEDSAVACATION
Scoll Down For 'Big Update': Mr. Morrissey is indeed one of the finest... But this poster humbly believes our history, is essential to determining policy, focus, resolve, for our future. Even those ugly partisan confrontations. There is little doubt... [Read More]
Tracked on September 27, 2006 12:51 PM
» The Liberal Denial Grows from HILLARYNEEDSAVACATION
Mr. Morrissey is indeed one of the finest... But this poster humbly believes our history, is essential to determining policy, focus, resolve, for our future. Even those ugly partisan confrontations. There is little doubt, the negligence of the 1990'... [Read More]
Tracked on September 27, 2006 7:02 PM
My Other Blog!
Comment Moderation Policy - Please Read!
Skin The Site
Des Moines Register
International Herald Tribune
The Weekly Standard
The New Republic
AP News (Yahoo! Headlines)
Guardian Unlimited (UK)
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
- dave on Another National Health Care System Horror Story
- brooklyn on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- rbj on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- Robin S on Requiem For A Betrayed Hero
- Ken on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- Robin S. on Requiem For A Betrayed Hero
- RBMN on Hillary Not Hsu Happy
- NoDonkey on Another National Health Care System Horror Story
- Robin Munn on Fred Thompson Interview Transcript
- filistro on When Exactly Did Art Die?
Proud Ex-Pat Member of the Bear Flag League!