Examining Clinton, Bush records on al Qaeda
August 6, 2002 Posted: 1:11 PM EDT (1711 GMT)
(CNN) -- A Time magazine report this week revealed that the Clinton administration left the Bush team detailed proposals to roll back al Qaeda.
However, the Bush administration disputes the newsmagazine's account that a lengthy review process delayed implementation of a plan to dismantle the terrorist network before September 11.
Do both administrations share blame for not taking the terrorist threat more seriously? Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst with the Brookings Institution, steps into the "Crossfire" with host Paul Begala and guest host Ann Coulter.
BEGALA: It seems to me, reading Time magazine this week, that if there were no 22nd Amendment, that cursed blot on our Constitution, and President Clinton had been re-elected, America would have attacked Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan long before September 11, right? [Read Time's coverage]
O'HANLON: I'm not so sure. I give him credit for coming up with a serious plan. But if you look back, the Clinton administration had a lot of the evidence, starting with 1998, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. We knew al Qaeda was behind that; we chose a cruise missile response.
Gen. [Henry] Shelton, who, as you know, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at that time, thought that was the most we could do. He opposed Special Operation forces.
So you had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs saying, "This is all you could really do." And Bill Clinton was happy to say, "OK, that's all I want to try. I don't want to risk American lives; I don't want to put American forces into Afghanistan."
He had the chance and chose not to go with this more aggressive strategy back then. Two years later he changed his mind, but at that point it was too late for him to do anything about it.
BEGALA: But he also asked them to develop a Predator drone; it would be armed with Hellfire missiles. It was not operational until President Bush came in. Bush never used it. He had submarines on quick standby attack. President Bush asked them to stand down when he came into power.
He had, in published accounts, at least death squads frankly from Pakistan, Afghanistan, from the United States' CIA and Northern Alliance all trying go after [Osama] bin Laden.
I mean, I do think that the record, at least in Time magazine, is pretty compelling.
O'HANLON: I think Bill Clinton was changing his mind over time. And I think he proved in the Kosovo war he's willing to change his mind and get serious about a conflict and do what it took to win. He did that in Kosovo. He began, as you know, ruling out ground forces and ultimately was prepared to invade, if necessary.
And I think you're probably right. If Clinton had won a third term, he might have started to implement this plan.
Of course, it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 because the terrorists were already here at the time. But I think he was moving in that direction.
But he had his chance, and he sort of blew it when he did I still think.
COULTER: Well, it's good that Clinton administration officials are stepping up to say that he would have done it, just as he would have fought in Vietnam now, if he had the chance. He had eight years, and he didn't do anything.
And according to this article in Vanity Fair, the official publication of the Democratic National Committee, for eight years the entire Clinton administration was rebuffing evidence of where Osama was, invitations to come get him.
... According to this article from the January 2002 Vanity Fair: Sudan "cabled the FBI in Washington, offering to extradite them" -- this was the two terrorists who blew up the embassy. "Without consulting the FBI, the U.S. Departments of State and Defense responded by bombing the al-Shifa factory in Khartoum."
That's how he responds: He bombs an aspirin factory.
O'HANLON: Well, as you know Ann, it was a little bit of a tough call back then. You did have Gen. Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former Special Operations commander, saying, "Don't put American Special Forces into Afghanistan."
That might be the one thing that would work, if it works. But it might also be ...
COULTER: ... something other than bombing the people who were inviting us in to come get Osama. I mean Sudan, for eight years ...
BEGALA: ... Ann, that you would...
COULTER: ... Come in. We've got Osama, we've got Osama.
BEGALA: Do you buy the al Qaeda spin that that was an aspirin factory, because I think it's a chemical weapons plant that we struck. And I think we were -- I'm damn glad we struck it. Do you believe bin Laden?
COULTER: ... We now know it's not bin Laden, it's Sudan. They kept saying, come get Osama, come get these guys. We've got ...
BEGALA: For the record, you think that that was an aspirin factory, when bin Laden says you don't believe ...
COULTER: That's according to the official publication of the Democratic National [Committee], Vanity Fair.
BEGALA: I couldn't find anything in Vogue either, but I frankly believe Time magazine over Vanity Fair.
COULTER: It takes him a while to come up with his excuse.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/06/cf.crossfire/
This is a very interesting exchange and the rumors persist, depending on what you read, that The Clinton Administration was "offered Osama bin Laden" on several occasions and declined every time. How many times is it? It only had to be ONE TIME and as time goes by, this will be lost in the smoke and mirrors of that Administration.
Begala is a pure Democrat Hack just like Coulter is a Republican Hack. Who do you believe?
Coulter was making a snide remark about Vanity Fair Magazine because it tends to tow the DNC Line, as many magazines do because many magazines are run by liberal folks. Oprah's magazine, the now defunct Rosie! Saying that Time Magazine is more accurate or ... whatever, over Vanity Fair is probably true but to what degree? Probably not a whole hell of alot really.
So, if we sift through this little exchange these people had, what we see is indecisiveness on the part of The Clinton Administration. Nearly a decade of waiting, but by God, if it were not for that splotch on that Constitution, Clinton would have had a third term and he would have done something then!
That is so damned weak, if it were not for 9-11-01, it would be laughable, but given our current situation, it's not so funny now, is it?
It is that reluctance and indecisiveness to use the Military from someone who once wrote that he "loathed the military" that was the problem. But if you give him enough time, he can get it right.
That's the problem, you don't get much time "to get it right." He used more armor in Waco, Texas against the Branch Davidians than he would "OK" for use in Mogadishu. Les Aspin, the SecDef at the time, what a blunder with lives lost because someone had no idea of how to use the Military.
And yes, that does tell us alot about the man himself when armor would be OK'd for use against our own people but not the enemy we were trying to apprehend or kill in Mogadishu.
But, hey, tomorrow is another day and we have a President now who will be decisive and use force if necessary and that's not making people happy either. The same people who could watch a mushroom cloud go up and watch snowflakes come down three hours later would be sitting outside the rubble zone saying, "How could this happen to us? Here?" It happens when you live in a dangerous world and don't do anything about it.
Bush is far from perfect, there is no perfect human being and certainly no perfect politician, but he's doing a great job. That's why it is a little offensive when the people come out with the "Jed Clampett Conspiracy" about the oil. Like I said before, I don't even care if it is about oil anymore because it is pretty obvious that the lights have been turned on and the roaches are running for their lives now.
So, while propping up the flaccid Clinton Administration and attacking the Bush Administration, it is a clear that a choice is made. The response to that can be "Bull" as well, because the choice is, a limited strike which does not get the job done or takes a third term to get it right (Clinton) or getting to the root of the problem and killing it which is now being condemned.
As far as The Oslo Accords are concerned, I don't think this Abbu Abbas, however his name is spelled, he was not captured anywhere in the Occupied Territories, West Bank, Israel - none of that, he was apprehended in Iraq and I don't think Oslo covers that.
)
.