The Clinton Mind-Set (makes excellent points!)

The Washington Post ^ | March 24, 2004 | Peter D. Feaver

[FairOpinion]

Why didn't the Clinton administration take stronger military action against al Qaeda's Taliban refuge in the 1990s, when the Sept. 11 plot was being hatched?

Indeed, al Qaeda rhetoric regularly "proved" that the Americans were vulnerable to terrorism by invoking the hasty cut-and-run after 18 Army soldiers died in the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" events in Somalia -- a strategy developed and implemented, ironically enough, by the same Richard Clarke who torments the Bush team today.

Before Sept. 11, Clinton defenders say, we did not have irrefutable proof of the casus belli of al Qaeda-Taliban complicity, there was no international consensus on the need to invade Afghanistan, and it would have been politically risky for the United States to act in the face of military objections. The same could be said about the invasion of Iraq after Sept. 11. In other words, determined commanders in chief have the mind-set and the resolve to act in spite of the political climate and military resistance.

[FairOpinion]

It's worth reading the whole thing!

It points out that the problem is the "Clinton Mindset", who was not willing to take the tough actions, it is not the generic "pre-Sept. 11" mindset, the Clinton administration is trying to use as an excuse.

It DOES matter, who is president.

And people better remember that in November.

[onyx]

Excellent post FO.

PING

[Mo1]

Indeed, al Qaeda rhetoric regularly "proved" that the Americans were vulnerable to terrorism by invoking the hasty cut-and-run after 18 Army soldiers died in the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" events in Somalia -- a strategy developed and implemented, ironically enough, by the same Richard Clarke who torments the Bush team today.

Clark was behind that???

[Mo1]

It's worth reading the whole thing!

I can't get in to read it ... grrrrrrrrrrrr

[My2Cents]

Classic "kicking-the-can-down-the-road" approach to problems. Clinton will be remembered for accomplishing nothing; he enjoyed being President, and that was the motive of his tenure in office -- he "pleased" himself.

[GeronL]

Thanks for the ping

[My2Cents]

I'm now convinced that Clinton has orchestrated this whole Dick Clarke American grandstand. However, I think will be sorry he ever tried to bring this comparison up between he and W.

[onyx]

See your FR mail.
You may use my entry code.
It is SO EASY!

[Mo1]

I finally got it .. I had to turn off all my protecting shields to get through

[onyx]

OK, good.
I screwed-up and posted my link on the board.
Please, I hope mods will delete #9.
LOL.

[elbucko]

...and it would have been politically risky for the United States to act in the face of military objections.

When the Clinton White House ran Osama Bin Laden past a focus group, the group said "Osama Who"? There was nothing in it for Clinton to get Bin Laden when he had the chance and "high negatives" if something went wrong. Bill remembered Carters Iran "rescue mission" and decided it was better to be president.

As for Clarke, I wonder if he thought he'd be out of a job or demoted if Osama was caught.

[Mo1]

Suddenly armchair experts were quoting Kipling and ruminating on how the Afghans had twice defeated reigning military powers, first the British Empire and then the Soviet Empire.

Seems someone has been paying attention

[BfloGuy]

Suddenly armchair experts were quoting Kipling and ruminating on how the Afghans had twice defeated reigning military powers, first the British Empire and then the Soviet Empire. Seems someone has been paying attention

Yes! Yes! Yes! Now the Dems claim that Afghanistan was exactly the right thing to do (they only disagree on the Iraq bit). But then, they were dragging out the Viet Nam "quagmire" analogies and justifying them with the British and Soviet failures there.

This is an excellent post. Thanks.

[Fledermaus]

It's even better than that.

Now the Dems, through Dick Clarke, are saying we should have UNILATERALLY AND PRE-EMPTIVELY attacked Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban and AQ!

But I'm confused! That's okay for the terrorist there but not the terrorist in Iraq?

When are the sheep in America going to wake up and realize Democrats are lying scum and get rid of them?

Oh wait, I forgot the Dems pay voters off with other people's money while making themselves fat and rich through government bureaucracies.

[Mo1]

Now the Dems, through Dick Clarke, are saying we should have UNILATERALLY AND PRE-EMPTIVELY attacked Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban and AQ!

Then why didn't Clinton do that ... instead in mid Dec of 2000 he pushed the UN for tougher sanctions against the Taliban?

[Fledermaus]

Clinton wouldn't do anything that didn't involve a BJ.

[NYCVirago]

Viewed in hindsight, the Bush-Rumsfeld military plan looked brilliant, but at the time it was highly controversial and decidedly risky.

Remember Johnny Apple and all of his talk of "quagmire"? And that was three weeks into the war!

[Puzzleman]

When Clinton left office, many Americans believed that he had been a good president. That perception is now shifting to one that thinks he was too busy serving his own appetites to mind the country’s business. I believe that there will be a further shift to the idea that he was willing to harm our nation if it meant that he would be re-elected or kept in power. The shocking part will be the list of the parties with whom he was doing deals.

[Jim Noble]

There is no one who holds X42 in lower esteem than I (although Mia T is close).

However, if President Bush, or if Winston Churchill for that matter, had gone to Congress on 9/10/01 or any day before that and laid out the case for war, he would have been decisively rejected.