Clinton and Bush

Hindsight really is 20/20. We look back now on declassified documents and point fingers - who knew what, when, and how. The Left claims the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief is damning evidence that Secretary Rice and President Bush could have prevented 9/11. Now, the Right has their turn to put on their 20/20 goggles.

Newly declassified Clinton-era documents show the State Department had warned the Clinton Administration was warned of potential expand of radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East" five years before 9/11. Three separate times the State Department attempted to schedule meetingw with the administration but to no resolve. In March 1999, German intelligence officials gave the Central Intelligence Agency the first name and telephone number of Marwan al-Shehhi, and asked the Americans to track him. This is all on top of the Able Danger mess.

I'll try to look at this in the most objective way. There are differences in the two administrations handling of terrorism threats. First, there is the issue of time. Clinton was warned multiple times in 1996 and in the summer of the same year had an opportunity to take real action against the terrorists of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. He had been in office over three years, so adjustment is no excuse. After the warnings and attack in Saudi Arabia, Clinton had ample time (four years) to take action against radicals bent on hurting us. He launched a few missles, but did not take the war to them.

On the contrary, democrats and Michael Moore claim that had President Bush had read and followed up on the August 6th PDB, the whole 9/11 mess could have been prevented. The briefing was vague at best and only left a little more of a month to deter the attacks. Conservatives claim he was still adjusting to Presidential office, having just been inaugurated seven months prior.

Neither of the Presidents would allow such horrible murders to occur had they known. I am not declaring Clinton or Bush knowingly allowed any terrorist attack to be carried out. It is the policy that I am criticizing. Clinton was known for his diplomacy. I believe he truly felt sending men off to oust bin Laden would have "inconvenienced him" but would not stop the terrorist activities. This is true, but had he taken dramatic action toward the enemy, we may be in a better place. We would definitely be living in a completely different world. Bush's attempt at taking the war to the Muslim extremists and ousting leaders who support them is a much more confontational and controversial, but is quite more effective than launching a few missles into some camps and turning the other way.

I feel sorry for both Presidents. Attacks made by pointing fingers is not fair to the men that lead this country. I hope the Right doesn't sink as low as the Left and place total blame on Clinton. (Although, I'd place a bet they will ... as they have in the past.) Let's stick to criticizing policy and not attacking the men who really do want what is best for America. Even if we don't agree with their vision.