Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Clinton's tepid response to terror




Editorial


Rocky Mountain News, December 24, 2001



Early last month, Bill Clinton gave a long, rambling, rather peculiar speech on terrorism at his alma mater, Georgetown University. The speech so lacked coherence that it lent itself to a variety of conflicting interpretations. Some people felt Clinton was saying that American slavery and the country's wars against Indians had somehow caused what happened on Sept. 11, but close inspection of his words makes that a dubious reading of his meaning.

The former president, in also talking about the Crusades and all the bloodshed in Jerusalem by Christian soldiers, did say, "Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless." Was the president contending Americans of European descent are somehow responsible for the cruelties that took place way back then? Reading the speech as a whole it is clear that he did not, but he wasn't as clear as he might have been.

What is also unclear is whether Clinton could have prevented the terrorist attack of Sept. 11. A number of journalists have noted how far Clinton as president stayed away from foreign affairs -- he repeatedly refused to have private meetings with his CIA director, for instance. They have noted as well that the responses to terrorism on his watch were ineffectual at the least. But more devastating than these reports are the allegations of one Mansoor Ijaz that the administration did not accept offers from Sudan to provide data on al-Qaida operations and to facilitate Osama bin Laden's extradition to the United States. Eventually, bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan.

Former Clinton administration officials do not concede any laxity in fighting terrorism, and they are quoted as disputing Ijaz's contention in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece that Sudanese officials ever agreed to arrest bin Laden. As was the case during the various scandals during Clinton's tenure, the officials attack the critic's integrity, telling a reporter Ijaz was miffed because his contributions to the Democratic Party bought him no White House influence and that he was trying to serve his own financial interests in Sudan. Ijaz is identified in the Times op-ed as being chairman of an investment company.

Pinning down whether Clinton could have taken steps that would have prevented the September catastrophe will be no easy matter. Somedays historians will spend years examining all the documents and recollections of participants, and we will be closer to a conclusive answer. But there is reason to suspect he did not do as much as he should have -- especially given that the evidence from Ijaz suggests that he did have definite opportunity, and let it slip.




Return to The Culpability of William Jefferson Clinton



American Veterans Home Page

Return to the "War on Terror" Home Page