The Truth About Pre-9/11

For several days, I've been meaning to post about the controversy over ABC's 9/11 "documentary," called "The Path to 9/11," scheduled to air on September 10 and 11. (Unfortunately, as has been the case recently, I've been really busy working so I've had less time to post). However, this is a subject that I've read a lot of about and have a keen interest in, so I thought I would chime in.

What really happened before 9/11, in both the Clinton and Bush II administrations, isn't really that difficult to determine. And it can be found in a few sources, like the 9/11 Commission Report, Richard Clarke's book, etc. The fact of the matter is that what the Bush Administration did (or more aptly, did not do) in the nine months they were in power leading up to 9/11 is nothing less than criminal negligence. And, as shown when Richard Clarke came out with the truth in the spring of 2004, the Bush Administration desperately wants to keep this truth away from the American people, and keep the myth of Bush as terrorist-hunter alive.

Did the Clinton Administration make some mistakes in dealing with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Certainly. But there is no doubt at all that catching and killing Bin Laden and stopping his terror network was a top priority of Clinton, particularly during his second term. According to Richard Clarke, there was no greater focus for Clinton than getting Bin Laden. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bush during his first nine months in office. (Indeed, Bush admitted as much to Bob Woodward -- he didn't feel there was a sense of urgency)

Here are the facts about Clinton vs. Bush, which is what this movie attempts to gloss over and rewrite:

Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden in 1998, and was focused on him repeatedly during his second term. When Clinton went after Bin Laden, the Republicans accused him of trying to "Wag the Dog," showing that they didn't understand the threat the way Clinton did. The ABC movie appears to make two contradictory points: that Clinton used the attacks against Bin Laden as a way to distract the county from impeachment and that Clinton was so distracted by impeachment that he wasn't able to focus on Bin Laden. In actuality, Clinton told people like Richard Clarke not to worry about the political ramifications of their actions; he just wanted to get Bin Laden. The real issue is the fact that Ken Starr and his witchhunt became the focus, rather than on catching a terrorist killer who had bombed our embassies in 1998. The Republicans are absolutely to blame for this focus, no question. If they would not support isolated military strikes against Bin Laden, how could they be expected to support a sustained military operation in Afghanistan? The damage that Republicans did to this country with their focus on Clinton's sex life is incalculable.

Moreover, at the end of 1999, as the millennium celebrations approached, Clarke and others learned from the CIA about an increased level of threats, similar to pre-9/11. What did Clinton do about this? He put all agencies on high alert, having daily meetings, "shaking the tree," until the result was that a would-be airport bomber was caught entering the country from Canada.

Let's contrast that with Bush. Immediately after the election, he's told by Clinton in an Oval Office meeting that Bin Laden is one the most important issues he will be dealing with. Bush ignores this advice. Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger tell Condi Rice the same thing. She ignores the advice; indeed, Clarke says that Rice appeared to have never heard of the term "al Qaeda" before. Immediately after Bush was inaugurated, Clarke briefs VP Cheney on the same issues; Cheney does nothing about it. In fact, Cheney's anti-terrorism commission, created early in Bush's first year, does not meet until the week before 9/11. Meanwhile, Cheney is focused on Iraq.

Clarke sends out desperate warnings, including e-mails in all caps and italics to Rice about the threat. She does nothing. The final determination is made that al Qaeda is behind the attack on the U.S. Cole -- the Bush Administration decides not to retaliate because, in Rice's explanation, it might provoke them to attack the U.S. again.

Bush receives the infamous 8/6/01 PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." What does he do? He tells the CIA briefer, "OK, you've covered your ass now," and goes fishing. He does nothing. Ashcroft tells his briefer during the summer of 2001 that he does not want to hear any more about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. And then Ashcroft asks Congress, the week before 9/11, to CUT funds for counter-terrorist operations. And on 9/11, Rice was scheduled to give a speech that outlined the Bush policy to address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday." The speech dealt with missile defense. It contained no mention of Bin Laden, terrorism, or Islamic radicals.

So I think the record is pretty clear: the Clinton Administration, despite constant criticism, tried to fight Bin Laden and terrorism, although that effort had limitations. The Bush Administration simply didn't try at all. It's all out there, in the 9/11 Report and other places. If only ABC knew where to look.
- posted by Joshua @ 5:59 PM (0) comments

 
That Could Only Happen in Democratic Senate, Huh

The Republicans have created a website newspaper that they have oh-so-cleverly titled, "America Weakly," which is ostensibly a look into the future if the Democrats take control of Congress this fall.

My favorite part is an article about Bush's supposed nominees to the Supreme Court to replace newly "retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, which the evil Democrats have blocked. According to the article, here's what happened to Bush's first nominee to replace Stevens when he was faced with the Democrats controlling the Senate:

The President’s first nominee to replace him never was granted a committee
hearing, and withdrew her name from consideration.

Oh, yeah. That never happened when the Republicans controlled the Senate. Right, Harriet?
- posted by Joshua @ 8:07 PM (0) comments