Thoughts on BJ Clinton and More

Back to the Bill Clinton's Role in This Attack Page

CLINTON'S REGRET: In last Friday's New York Times, an anonymous close friend of Bill Clinton's reflected on the former president's mixed emotions after the WTC Massacre: "He has said there has to be a defining moment in a presidency that really makes a great presidency. He didn't have one." A reader points out how similar these feelings are to another character in history as captured by the Roman historian, Suetonius: "He even used openly to deplore the state of his times, because they had been marked by no public disasters, saying that the rule of Augustus had been made famous by the Varus massacre, and that of Tiberius by the collapse of the amphitheatre at Fidenae, while his own was threatened with oblivion because of its prosperity, and every now and then he wished for the destruction of his armies, for famine, pestilence, fires, or a great earthquake." To whom was Suetonius referring? Caligula.
- 10/4/2001 02:20:20 PM

FRUITS OF NEGLIGENCE, CTD: As each new story comes in about the scale of the intelligence failure before the September 11 massacre, the clearer it becomes that a large amount of anger is the appropriate response. Bart Gellman's piece in the Washington Post actually shows that the Clinton administration had a chance to nab bin Laden as he was being expelled from Sudan. The reason they fumbled the ball was that the Saudis were unwilling to take custody of bin Laden, and the Clintonites decided they didn't have enough evidence to indict bin Laden in an American court. Indict him? Why wasn't he killed? Such are the fruits of treating terrorism as a simple criminal offense, rather than an act of war. Thanks to former national security adviser, Tony Lake, and to the secretary of state, Warren Christopher, bin Laden escaped to Afghanistan to plot the further murders of Americans. The Post also has a damning article about Clinton's lame cruise missile strike against bin Laden after the embassy bombings. As one expert put it, "I think that raid really helped elevate bin Laden's reputation in a big way, building him up in the Muslim world. My sense is that because the attack was so limited and incompetent, we turned this guy into a folk hero." In other words, the Clinton administration let the guy go, then succeeded in cementing his reputation. Way to go, guys. A similar sorry tale is told by Sy Hersh in the New Yorker. If any of you think George Tenet has any reason to be still running the CIA, you should read Hersh's article. Yes, the first Bush administration needs to take a hit. But the largest responsibility for running our intelligence services into the ground must be the Clinton administration's. "From Bush to Clinton, what happened [in Afghanistan] is one of the most embarrassing American foreign policy decisions, as bad as Vietnam," says Bob Kerrey. "We also had a half-baked Iraqi operation and sent a signal that we're not serious." Amen. Yes, I know this is hindsight. But accountability matters. When will Tenet resign? And when will Clinton himself fess up to his record of appalling negligence? In the last resort, the only ultimate responsibility of the president of the United States is the security of its citizens from foreign attack. Yes, both Bushes share part of the blame for our intelligence collapse. But Bill Clinton shoulders by far the most.

SPECIAL CLINTON-BASHING EXTRA: On the plane to Chicago today, I was busy reading the New Yorker and came across Nick Lemann's piece on Hillary Clinton. Nick's reporting on this administration has, I think, been easily the best out there, so I hope he doesn't take this personally. But Senator Clinton's response to a question Lemann posed is simply jaw-dropping. In the context of the World Trade Center massacre, he asked her "how she thought people would react to knowing they are on the receiving end of a murderous anger." Clinton's reply: "Oh I am well aware that it is out there. One of the most difficult experiences I personally had in the White House was during the health-care debate, being the object of extraordinary rage." She talks about hecklers and the threat of violence and the rhetoric spewed by radio talk show hosts. I've no doubt these things hurt. Heck, I've had my fair share of the same kind of thing. But to equate that with the murder of thousands of innocent people by terrorists is simply deranged. Or rather, it's just another sign that this woman adds whole universes of meaning to the word narcissism. Even after a massacre, it's still all about her.
- 10/3/2001 11:21:09 PM

GLADSTONE LIVES: Tony Blair's speech to the Labour Party Conference yesterday was the most memorable since Margaret Thatcher's stunning performance the day after her hotel and cabinet had been bombed into a pile of rubble and dust by the IRA. How strange that one of the greatest evils of the modern world should have brought out the best in two prime ministers. But how fitting as well. Take a moment to read the full text of Blair's speech. There are some marvelous passages: "Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of September 11. The action we take will be proportionate, targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must." Thus a Labour prime minister sends a rhetorical cruise missile into the leftist editorial offices of the Guardian, the Observer, and the Independent. Then there's his passionate defense of America: "America has its faults as a society, as we have ours. But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery. I think of its constitution, with its inalienable rights granted to every citizen still a model for the world. I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became chief of their armed forces and is now secretary of state, Colin Powell, and I wonder frankly whether such a thing could have happened here. I think of all this and I reflect: yes, America has its faults, but it is a free country, it is our ally and some of the reaction to September 11 betrays a hatred of America that shames those that feel it." Take that, Mr. Chomsky. Blair's pro-Americanism isn't like Thatcher's. She revered America's defense of freedom, its relatively small government, its defeat of tyranny abroad. Blair admires its liberalism and search for social justice. Both, of course, are right. And neither, strictly speaking, is or was a Tory in foreign policy. They're Gladstonians - convinced of their morality, determined to defeat what they see as evil, and committed to semi-utopian visions of the possibility of world progress and the duty of the righteous to impose it. My own vision is closer to Thatcher's than Blair's, but grown-ups realize that these two strains in Anglo-American politics - conservative liberalism and liberal liberalism - are both necessary for a healthy politics in both countries. What neither Thatcher nor Blair really believed in was the dark pessimism of real Toryism or the true socialism of the British Labour past. As such they represent the two political wings of Britain's Americanophilia. The United States - in Reagan and, now, Bush - was lucky to have each of them at exactly the right time.
- 10/3/2001 12:36:38 AM

THE AMERICAN PROSPECT'S LEARNING CURVE: Having barely noticed in its first few years that foreign policy actually exists, the leftist magazine, the American Prospect, runs a splendidly honest piece about the anti-war demonstrations I also witnessed this weekend. I like this sentence: "We shouldn't expect much charity toward the president from protesters capable of airing slogans like "The Real Terrorist Works in the White House." I consider George W. Bush a dim bulb, even an impostor -- and certainly oppose many aspects of his foreign policy -- but calling him a terrorist is a truly vile form of moral equivalency." I know this shouldn't be a hard call, but, hey, it's progress.

HALBERSTAM ABSOLVES CLINTON: Interesting insight into the minds of some liberals who simply will not acknowledge that Bill Clinton bears a great deal of responsibility for the failures of U.S. foreign policy, security and intelligence in the 1990s. In Salon, David Halberstam blames himself (fair enough) and other journalists (I'm happy to beat my breast as well) but he won't finger Clinton. This despite this anecdote from his new book: "The most telling story is about Clinton's election in 1992 right before he was inaugurated. He comes to Washington to meet with the House Democratic chairmen. When he gets to Lee Hamilton of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Hamilton says, "Well, Mr. President, we have China. Whatever you do on China, you're only going to please half the people. Then, there's Saddam Hussein ... " Clinton interrupts him and says, "Lee, I've been traveling around our country for a year and no one cares about foreign policy other than about six journalists." Hamilton is taken aback and replies, "That may be true, but the last presidents have been defined by foreign affairs."" When pushed by Salon to acknowledge that a president might actually be required to lead the people, rather than follow them, Halberstam simply stammers: "In essence, Clinton reflected the national mood. Had there been one more term, had he not been pulled down by the Lewinsky thing, thereby losing two years of his second term, it might have been different." Of course, in this, Halberstam reflects the view of the Clintonites that the president had no responsibility for the appalling trauma he put the country through in 1998 - just while Osama bin Laden's plot was thickening. Some things never change.
- 10/2/2001 08:03:25 PM

MORE EVIDENCE OF CLINTON'S FAILURE: Fascinating report in the left-wing British paper, the Observer, about the extent of the Clinton administration's responsibility for hobbling our intelligence operations in the last ten years. Vast files of intelligence from Sudan, specifically about Osama bin Laden, were simply ignored or spurned by Clinton officials. According to the Observer, "One senior CIA source admitted last night: 'This represents the worst single intelligence failure in this whole terrible business. It is the key to the whole thing right now. It is reasonable to say that had we had this data we may have had a better chance of preventing the attacks.' He said the blame for the failure lay in the 'irrational hatred' the Clinton administration felt for the source of the proffered intelligence - Sudan, where bin Laden and his leading followers were based from 1992-96. He added that after a slow thaw in relations which began last year, it was only now that the Sudanese information was being properly examined for the first time." Quick, Sandy. Better leak something to the New York Times to spin this one away.

THE SUPREME COURT BARS CLINTON: Well, well. How could they? After enduring a full day of relentless, organized, abusive emails from the Clinton apparatchiks, all I can say is: at least some people understand the concept of accountability.

IT'S NOT CLINTON'S FAULT - NOTHING EVER IS: One theme of the largely obscene torrent of pro-Clinton emails is a revealing one. Rather than question the obvious fact of the last administration's ultimate responsibility for national security, they argue that the Republicans are at fault for distracting Clinton with what they now call a "jihad" against the president. This follows the usual pattern, fomented by Clinton himself, that he is never to be held responsible for anything ever (except all the good things that happened on his watch). Even after close to 7,000 innocent deaths, Clinton is still the victim. I have a brief response to this in three parts. The president need not have done things that resulted in a sexual harassment lawsuit against him in the first place. The president could easily have settled such a suit years before it metastasized into impeachment. The president could have told the truth as soon a the Lewinsky scandal hit and defused the entire situation. The responsibility for his distraction is ultimately his alone. That's what responsibility means. That's what accountability means. As president, he actually had a duty to defuse that situation in order to function effectively as commander-in-chief. But he chose his own political suicide instead. I opposed convicting the president; and thoroughly criticized the Starr Report. But that doesn't mean the president should be excused for avoiding responsibility and accountability. And the fact that those ideas were so thoroughly trashed by Clinton himself is only further proof of the damage he did to the culture and the government.
- 10/1/2001 12:16:42 PM