Clinton and the War on Terrorism
I have a friend, who we will call Budweiser, who is very smart, very well read, and very supportive of Bush. With not much good on that score to report lately he has taken to saying things like "Well, can you really imagine Al Gore fighting the war on terrorism?" or "Clinton and the Democrats never did anything effective against terrorism!" Aside from the fact that when you have to go back to unprovable hypotheticals from 6 to 14 years ago, there is this reported by Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal:
Published accounts by Pollack and others tell of a 1997 intelligence operation (details remain classified) with which the United States hit back after Iran sponsored a terrorist attack on American forces in Saudi Arabia. Stung, Iran backed off. "I think we ought to make a much bigger effort to do this," says Pollack, adding, however, that we also "ought to be realistic about what we can accomplish."
Note carefully - this was an effective reposte that obtained results. And who was responsible for it? The much maligned Bill Clinton. The article goes on to say that much more of this needs to be done by the current administration.
The administration is unlikely to talk about covert and proxy operations against Iran, but one would be "surprised and disappointed," as Ashton Carter, a former assistant secretary of Defense, told The Atlantic Monthly, if there weren't any.
Lately surprise and disappointment seem the order of the day.
Thanks to andrewsullivan.com for the link.
posted by Clemens @ 2:18 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Here's another interesting comment -- Bill Mahr the other day on CNN pointed out that John Kerry had stated over and over during his bid for the presidency that police work, not a "war," is the only way to stop terrorism. Looks like Scotland Yard (and Iraq!) have proven him right.
Maybe something to point out to Budweiser?
I have a friend, who we will call Budweiser
There is no need for name calling
who is very [...] supportive of Bush. With not much good on that score to report lately he has taken to saying things like "Well, can you really imagine Al Gore fighting the war on terrorism?" or "Clinton and the Democrats never did anything effective against terrorism!" Aside from the fact that when you have to go back to unprovable hypotheticals ...
We would not know how Gore would have handled 9/11 so that speculation is pointless. Though I tend to think he would not have been as aggressive in general.
There is more validity in saying how John Kerry would have handled the war, since he has made several public statements both before and after 2004 (including many recently). I don't think it is a huge leap to suggest, he would be withdrawing troops from Iraq regardless of the consequences.
Bill Clinton (who is not someone I hate*) lacked the cojones to deal with the threats that preceded 9/11. No response to the Cole, and a few lobs in the Sudan as a response to embassy bombings wasn't encouraging.
He did not take national security seriously. Inspectors get kicked out of North Korea and Iraq and we do nothing.
I am not going to say that someone else would have behaved differently because that is impossible to know, and 9/11 gave us all a wakeup call.
However I think it is fair to say Clinton did not want to rock the economic boat for fear that would ruin the sole remaning positive aspect of his legacy.
This is a complete aside but does anyone else think that Ahmadinejad and Bush resemble each other?
*Dad hates him, and even wishes he were president to snub Clinton when inviting past presidents to the White House. I on the other hand would snub Carter.
--Joey
Joey - one case is as hypothetical as the other. It's just as likely that Kerry would have found a more competent Sec of Defense, rallied foreign support, including Arab support, and turned the corner that Bush et al say we have turned so many times already. We'll never know. My point is that if you have to keep going back to these ephemeral hypotheticals, as Budweiser does, you have no argument.
As for Clinton, that is your Dad's opinion. Most of the commentator's I saw after the 2000 election agreed that Clinton would have won it in a walk. Being an inept campaigner, like Gore, tells you nothing about how he would have reacted to 911. Search your memory banks: Gore ran to the right of Bush on Terrorism. Bush did not think it was an issue. Who would have been able to predict that Bush would have taken out the goverment most responsible for it?
And for Clinton's ineffectual bomb lobbing - It was roundly condemned by both the Left and the Right, which is my rough yardstick for doing what is right. Or at least reasonable.
So we will never know. What we know is what we are stuck with now. Please read the little war story post after this one.
ps: I like 'Budweiser' - I WAS going to call Adolph Coors!
Don't know whe that came out as 'Anonymous' - its me, Tio Clemens.
oh well. Clemens 0, technology gone bad 54403.
Post a Comment
<< Home