March 23, 2004
WE DENIED THEM ASPIRIN ANYWAY:
Ex-White House aide defends 9/11 allegations (CNN, 3/23/04)
During the Clinton administration, [former White House counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke] said, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of "fewer than 50 Americans," and Clinton responded with military action, covert CIA action and by supporting United Nations sanctions."They stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia," Clarke said, "They stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world."
"Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 [U.S. soldiers] were killed in [a bombing attack in Beirut,] Lebanon, and there was no retaliation," Clarke said. "Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed [in the bombing of] Pan Am [Flight] 103, and there was no retaliation."
"I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal," Clarke said.
Just in case there was any doubt that this is merely partisan bitching. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 23, 2004 4:45 PM
As I've said before, any Democrat who thinks this is going to work in their favor is delusional. From CNN's homepage: "The Clinton administration debated whether to launch airstrikes to kill Osama bin Laden three times in 1998 and 1999, but decided against them because of doubts about the intelligence and concerns about killing civilians, former defense secretary William Cohen told the independent panel investigating the 9/11 attacks."
People will feel so much better knowing that the Clinton administration "debated" doing something.
Re partisan bitching: I caught half an hour of Powell's testimony today. Two-thirds of his testimony was consumed by statements and comments, not open-ended questions, by commission members. Richard Ben Veniste, one of the most partisan Democrats inside the Beltway, excoriated DepSecState Armitage over the non-appearance by Condi Rice (he was too cowardly to heap abuse on Powell). After Veniste's diatribe, the audience applauded.
Some 'inquiry.'
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at March 23, 2004 6:11 PMThere are lots of independent conservatives who are admire Clarke. It's the Bush Administration that's in a defensive crouch and looking silly.
Posted by: Rick Heller at March 23, 2004 6:27 PMRick Heller -
And lots who think Clarke is unimaginative, humourless, and full of himself. Among other things.
Posted by: Tonto at March 23, 2004 6:42 PMClarke is wrong to say there was no retaliation to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. Reagan had a battleship shell some sites. True, it wasn't a lot of retaliation, but it was some.
Posted by: PapayaSF at March 23, 2004 6:51 PMWhat happened after the Berlin disco bombing, and the machine-gunning of American tourists at Rome airport?
Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 23, 2004 8:27 PMThe guy was in government for 30 years and the only time anyone ever did anything about al Qaeda was when George Bush got rid of their base in Afghanistan and now he's going after them in Pakistan. What's he even talking about.
Posted by: oj at March 23, 2004 9:07 PMReagan of course did order the bombing of Libya in retaliation for Qaddafi's terrorism. A bombing where France refused us permission to fly over their airspace, and a bombing which was opposed by Sen. Kerry, one can note.
Posted by: John Thacker at March 23, 2004 10:47 PMA bombing that was followed by the Libyans blowing up one of our airliners.
No cycle of violence after that, more's the pity.
At first, I wondered whether Clarke was just displaying the self-aggrandizement of the minor flunky who wants to preen and tell everyone that if only HE had been in charge, or at least listened to, then all would have been well.
We saw it with the FBI agent in Minneapolis.
And while I think that's probably a big part of Clarke's makeup, he does appear to be a purely partisan slanderer.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 24, 2004 1:59 PM