March 27, 2004
MOVING AT THE SPEED OF GOVERNMENT:
Bush, Clinton Varied Little on Terrorism (Dana Milbank and Dan Eggen, March 27, 2004, Washington Post)
The Bush administration's approach, which was in draft form by Sept. 4, 2001, did not differ substantially from Clinton's policy. The commission staff, in the "key findings" it released this week, said: "The new administration began to develop new policies toward al Qaeda in 2001, but there is no evidence of new work on military capabilities or plans against this enemy before September 11" -- a point on which Armitage concurred.The primary differences in the Bush proposal were calls for more direct financial and logistical support to the Northern Alliance and the anti-Taliban Pashtuns and, if that failed, to eventually seek the overthrow of the Taliban through proxies. The plan also called for drafting plans for possible U.S. military involvement, according to testimony and commission findings.
But those differences were largely theoretical; administration officials told the panel's investigators that the plan's overall timeline was at least three years, and it did not include firm deadlines, military plans or significant funding at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. [...]
But Clarke, who was counterterrorism director for both Clinton and Bush, has been much more critical of Bush. In testimony this week, he said al Qaeda and terrorism "were an extraordinarily high priority" and there was "certainly no higher a priority" under Clinton. On the other hand, he said, "the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue but not an urgent issue."
In fact, Clarke was constantly agitating for a more aggressive response to terrorism from the Clinton administration, including more significant bombing of al Qaeda and Taliban targets. The commission staff described him as "controversial" and "abrasive" and included an observation that several Clinton colleagues wanted him fired.
"He was despised under Clinton," said Ivo H. Daalder, who worked under Clarke in the Clinton National Security Council on issues other than terrorism. James M. Lindsay, who also worked under Clarke, concurred that people "thought he was exaggerating the threat" and said he "always wanted to do more" than higher-ups approved.
Even had we known for certain that al Qaeda planned hijackings, it seems unlikely we would have prevented 9-11, given that the anti-hijacking measures we had in place had worked so well for so long. And the idea that we'd ever have taken military action absent 9-11 is just delusional. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 27, 2004 4:03 PM
OJ's last point is a good one...Gregg Easterbrook has a recent post on his Blog where he makes the point that the very Democrats who are now saying Bush should have done more were apoplectic when Clinton some airstrikes back during the Lewinski scandal. He also points out that the Republicans who are now supporting action in Iraq also criticized Clinton's more aggressive actions as "wag the dog" stuff, designed to take attention from his problems at home.
Posted by: Foos at March 27, 2004 5:37 PMMy view is different than some people here. I would LIKE to congratulate Clarke on a job well done. I would LIKE to pat him on the back.
But he won't shut up. You ever meet people like that.
Posted by: h-man at March 27, 2004 6:38 PMOJ:
Good point. But our failure goes much further back than Clinton.
It is a cardinal sin to negotiate with terrorists. But every time we took planes where the terrorists wanted to go, rather than the first available piece of pavement equipped with decidedly prejudiced and overwhelming armed force, we were negotiating with terrorists.
The former was our stance pre-9/11. The latter is our stance now. Had it been that way all along, 9/11 would never have happened.
Which, unfortunately, isn't to say the Islamists wouldn't have found something else just as nefarious.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 27, 2004 7:29 PMJeff:
To the contrary, one should always negotiate with terrorists and kidnappers--then not follow through on the deal.
Posted by: oj at March 27, 2004 7:35 PMJeff's point is correct, but prior to 9/11 hijackers rewarded that kind of behavior by generally not killing people. 9/11 changed that, they were not looking for concessions from us, but in the words of Auric Goldfinger, "I want you to die!", they were out for our destruction, pure and simple.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 27, 2004 8:04 PMRobert:
Paul Johnson in 'History of the Jews' makes a similar point regarding pre-Hitler European Jews. Over the preceeding centuries, European Jewry became accustomed to pogroms every generation or so when villages would be burned and property stolen, and some killings, after which things returned to 'normal.' This was the mindset of Polish Jews when herded into the Warsaw ghetto. Their ancestors had heard 'Kill All The Jews' before. But they never imagined that Hitler would actually do it.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at March 27, 2004 9:17 PMOrrin's central point is right. Before 9/11, I too considered terrorism to be essentially a law-enforcement matter, with the occasional assist from spec-warriors. Absent 9/11, that's probably how I would have continued to see it.
Posted by: Joe at March 27, 2004 10:49 PMConsidering that among the things the left demonizes most in connection with Bush is the Patriot Act and John Ashcroft, the howls of indignation would have been unimaginable if the administration -- or even the Clinton Administration under Janet Reno -- had instituted the types of screening processes that would have been necessary to weed out the hijackers and the terrorist financial support network in the United States (yes, some Democrats would have given Clinton and Reno a pass on what they're lambasting Bush and Ashcroft for, but the whacked out left was already at odds with Clinton from the World Economic Summit in Seattle).
Posted by: John at March 27, 2004 10:52 PMI concur with h-man: Based on James M. Lindsay's remarks, it appears that Clarke was more correct about terror, and what the US response should have been, than anyone else in the Clinton administration.
Even if he is a jerk.
Another point is that all these analyses assume that the hijackers just happened to luck into a plan that worked and if only we had adopted some rule or another that would have thwarted the hijackings as they occurred, we could have prevented them.
Nonsense.
The hijackers designed their plan knowing what our security procedures were. If the procedures had been different, the plan would have been different.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 28, 2004 10:21 PMClinton didn't drop the ball in 1998 he dropped in 1993 in Mogadishu and with WTC I.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 28, 2004 10:52 PM