RSS

Was Clinton soft on terrorism or is it just another Republican myth/stupidity?

According to Richard Clarke, the anti-terrorism czar who worked under Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton & Dumbya, this is what he said about Clinton & terrorism in his book:

- Declared “a war on terror before the term became fashionable.” This was back in 1996, after the first World Trade Center attack, the Bush assassination attempt, the Khobar Towers attack, and the Oklahoma City bombing. (On Page 127, Clarke notes that it’s possible that al-Qaida operatives in the Philippines “taught Terry Nichols how to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building.” Intelligence places Nichols there on the same days as Ramzi Yousef, and “we do know that Nichols’s bombs did not work before his Philippines stay and were deadly when he returned.”)

- Thwarted al-Qaida’s efforts to establish a militant Islamist state in Bosnia. Clinton’s efforts to quell the war in the Balkans “defeated Al Qaeda when it had attempted to take over Bosnia by having its fighters dominate the defense of the breakaway state from Serbian attacks.”

- Responded to Saddam Hussein’s assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush with force. He ordered the bombing of Iraq’s intelligence headquarters, which, Clarke says, paired with a “stark warning” to the Iraqis, “successfully deterred Saddam from ever again using terror against us.”

- Responded to Iran’s role in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack with an unspecified “intelligence operation” intended to deter further Iranian terrorism.

- Responded to the African embassy bombings with strikes on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a chemical plant in Sudan, even though he anticipated criticism for the timing. (The strikes took place on Aug. 20, 1998, at the height of the Lewinsky scandal.) According to Clarke, Clinton said: “Do you all recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice about the timing. That’s my problem. Let me worry about that.”

- Worked to prevent al-Qaida attacks planned for the millennium. In December 1999, Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger “convened the Principals [Cabinet-level officials] in crisis mode. ‘We have stopped two sets of attacks planned for the Millennium. You can bet your measly federal paycheck that there are more out there and we have to stop them too. I spoke with the President and he wants you all to know.’ ” Clarke adds: “It was the sort of attention we needed in the summer of 2001.”

- Recognized early on that terrorism was a primary post-Cold War threat, and “greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs.”

What Clinton Did Wrong
-Went too easy on the CIA. “He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and Al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing.” (Clarke, however, goes pretty easy on Clinton for this failing: “Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations.”)

-Didn’t always push hard enough for homeland protection measures. In 1996, Clarke championed a plan for “a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington.” Despite Clarke’s efforts, Clinton’s Treasury Department refused to OK it. “Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts.”

So is Richard Clarke the liar or the Republicans?


6 Responses to “Was Clinton soft on terrorism or is it just another Republican myth/stupidity?”

  1. Caroline Greenfield says:

    idk

  2. rightwing radical 1 says:

    clinton sided with the muslims in Bosnia u dolt.

  3. Jason says:

    Clinton was an idiot

  4. green goblin says:

    Yes Clinton was soft on terrorism.

  5. Tina says:

    Just another myth.

  6. James E Lewis AKA choteau says:

    It has been known that Clinton was not soft on Terror for years but the Republicans some of whom at the highest levels had personal contact with close family members of Osama Bin Laden needed to create the myth that Democrats are soft on terror. You have to remember that the Republicans direct assault on the Constitution requires the active participation of at least 1/2 of the American populace. That is why they again feel comfortable with the Arizona law and the new bill by 4 Republicans and Senator Lieberman who is set up to take any heat for another assault on the Constitution.

Leave a Reply