Bill Clinton has also weighed in on the subject of the _real_ focus at the White House:
A Texas Democratic fundraiser, speaking not for attribution, told me about the lunch he recently had at the home of former President Clinton in the New York suburbs. Clinton recounted his last meeting with President Bush over coffee, just before the inauguration on Jan. 20, 2001. The outgoing president counseled his successor that he would face five challenges in the international arena - the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, the Al Qaeda terrorist threat, a nuclear-armed North Korea, the India-Pakistan confrontation, and the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in Iraq. Clinton was surprised at Bush's response. He said he disagreed with Clinton's order - that he considered Saddam Hussein to be the primary threat that he would have to deal with.The drumbeat is steady and growing louder. Bob Woodward, Rand Beers, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton, Karen Kwiatkowski... All have come forward with a remarkably consistent story -- That President George W. Bush and a coterie of others in his administration were fixated on getting rid of Saddam from before they came into office. They weren't focused on al Qaeda or other Islamic terrorism. There may well be "plenty of blame to go around," as I was counseled yesterday. It's probable that Bill Clinton _didn't_ do enough to fight terrorism. But when the WTC was bombed in February 1993, mere days after Clinton took office, I don't recall a bunch of Democrats running around blaming George H.W. Bush for the failure. And they certainly weren't blaming George H.W. Bush _three years_ into Clinton's first term for the failure. Yesterday, Richard Clarke apologized to the families of the 9/11 victims for failing them. When will others in the Bush administration admit a similar failing and apologize?
When will others in the Bush administration admit a similar failing and apologize?
When pigs fly?
When pigs fly AND hell freezes over?
What worries me most about the 9/11 Commission is that it appears headed toward making recommendations in support of the greater use of preemptive military action, and far less in the way of controls and restraints on the leaders and agencies charged with protecting us against terrorism.
If that’s the case, it seems to me that case will be made princiapally on the dubious if not altogether erroneous notion that, had we succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden with a cruise missle, rockets fired from a Predator or a hit squad of special forces troops at some indeterminate point prior to 9/11, the tragedy might never have happened.
That’s a big MAYBE, at the very best, isn’t it? And at any rate, al Queda has now morphed into a different shape, as I understand it, so that now it is perceived that even should we kill or capture both bin Laden and al-Zawahri it will afford us the satisfaction of some after-the-fact justice, but not prevent future terrorist attacks.
The Israelis have long experience in retaliatory military strikes against Hammas - and have begun an aggressive campaign of preemptive military strikes against the group. These strikes may or may not have prevented some attacks, but they have clearly not made Israelis ‘safe’ and they may have provoked more terrorist acts and strengthened the terrorists’ cause and support.
Our current administration and our military leaders in the field acknowldge that, after having between 110,000 and 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for some 16 months as of July 31st; despite the killing and capture of most all the former government’s top leaders, including Saddam Hussein and his sons; and even following our ‘turn-over’ of the government to Iraqis, acts of terrorism
are virtually certain to continue there for a very long time.
We have had troops in Afghanistan for over two years and the Pakistani military is now actively engaged with us in a second significant ‘hunt for al Queda’.
The Commission isn’t addressing questions regarding the motives, rationale, problems and effects of the Iraq adventure, or what has transpired in Afghanistan in the meantime, I don’t believe; isn’t looking into the issue of Pakistan’s proliferation of nuclear weapons or how we missed that; isn’t collecting info on or weighing the cost-effect benefits of military action versus cooperative, international policing of terrorism; and, could apparently care less about what has given rise to Islamic terrorism and its support, or how effective a preventative it has proven to be, to embark on efforts aimed at killing or imprisoning every individual who participates in or supports terrorism - or who happens to be standing around a little too close to it.
It has brought the issue of terrorism, and how the nation might best deal with it, into the narrowest
focus, then, and concentrated on second-guessing
and how to adjust to a paradigm that is no longer applicable.
And if I have it right, the current administration is under no obligation to follow any recommendations from the Committe, anyway, but can use parts of its findings to support its policies…while opponents to those policies can use other selected elements to support their opposition.
All this gives me pause as to the usefulness of the exercise, and as regards the value of the time, attention and argument being devoted to it.
“President George W. Bush and a coterie of others in his administration were fixated on getting rid of Saddam from before they came into office.”
Much as I dislike Bush et al, I consider this, in so far as it goes, a good thing.
Can anyone with compassion and solidarity for a suffering and oppressed people disagree?
James, ask yourself why, with so many oppressed people throughout the world, it was imperative to invade Iraq? Would you agree to an invasion of Myanmar?
And ask yourself also, why was Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand in the 80’s, when Saddam was already a ruthless tyrant?
And while you’re asking yourself important questions, what were you thinking when the suffering and oppressed Iraqi people were being hammered with economic sanctions?