From my blog,
http://teenageenthusiast.blogspot.com: Lets play a game. You tell me who said the following quotes.
"Terrorism is the major threat to the security of Americans."
"Terrorism has become an equal opportunity destroyer with no respect for borders."
"America must act and lead. Nowhere, is that responsibility more clear or more urgent than in the struggle against terrorism. "
"Terrorism is the enemy of our generation."
Hmm.... who was it? George W. Bush? Donald Rumsfeld? Some strong willed Republican congressman?
Bzzzz. Wrong. It was Bill Clinton. Yes, Bill Clinton. But more interesting is the time frame in which these were said. No, he didn't say them in a speech, trying to act macho after September 11th. Those words are from the mid-90's. Way back then, he recognized the looming threat of terrorism.
In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore talked about how September 11th could have been prevented and how all the signs were missed by the Bush administration....yadda yadda yadda, you know the story. But when confronted with that, Republicans predictably defer the blame and say how Bush was only in office a short time, while Clinton was in the White House for 8 years. Many of them often complained during the last election, and still do, that "Democrats are weak on security", "They can't protect you, Clinton was in office for so long and didn't do anything about terrorism".... etc. Dick Cheney said Clinton's war on terror was, "totally ineffective". And one conservative blogger said, "Americans will remember Clinton's failed policies as the cause of 9/11". But lets do a fact check for a second. Is there any validity to those claims? Did George W. Bush's predecessor neglect the security of Americans? Was protecting the nation from terrorism not high enough on President Clinton's list? History says other wise.
The truth is that Bill Clinton did an incredibly large amount in regards to advancing America's defense against terror. He indeed did far more than any President before him on the topic. This is just a short list of his more notable legislative initiatives against terrorism:
* In 1995, before the Oklahoma City bombing, Bill Clinton sent anti-terrorism legislation to the congress which after the attack, was beefed up even more. The legislation asked for one thousand more anti-terrorism officials; a new counter terrorism center under the authority of the FBI; approval to use military experts to help fight terrorism (which was at the time not allowed in issues considered to be domestic in nature); the authority to conduct surveillance on terrorists as they move, so multiple court orders are not needed; and increased penalties for knowingly providing terrorists with weapons which are used against federal employees and their families. The bill was held up in congress for a large amount of time as his opponents were reluctant to pass it.
*In June 1995, he signed "Presidential Decision Directive 39" which allocated responsibilities among various government agencies for preventing and dealing with attacks.
* He made terrorism a key top of the 1996 G-7 summit. At the meeting, he proposed steps which the international community could use to better combat terrorism, 40 of which were agreed to. Among them, speeding up the prosecution of terrorists, limiting their access to high tech equipment as much as possible, and increasing efforts to seize their resources.
*In late May of 1997, Clinton outlined an approach to deter attacks from terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda, including steps to prevent and defend against assaults on power systems, water supplies, medical services, financial services, computer networks and to train more state and local officials to respond to biological attacks.
*He signed "Presidential Decision Directive 62" which created a 10-point counter-terrorism initiative and established the post for "National Coordinator For Counter-terrorism and infrastructure protection" which would be filled Richard Clarke.
* At Clinton's orders, cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan, targeting a house where Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda figures were reportedly being held. Although Bin Laden was not killed, several people supposedly affiliated with Al Qaeda were. In the same set of military operations, he sent missiles to destroy a Sudanese chemical plant, which was successful.
*He also allocated an additional $300 million to the anti-terrorism budget in a single year. That was in addition to the $9 billion already requested. In the three years after the Oklahoma City bombing, he increased anti-terror funding a whopping 40%.
* And thanks in part to steps his administration did take, many terrorist attacks, including plots to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and multiple planes were prevented. Also thwarted were plans to detonate explosives during millennium celebrations, among others.
All of this is in addition to many small military operations and criminal prosecutions involving terrorists. That list is very incomplete. Clinton's anti-terror policies were at the time unprecedented. But with those accomplishments considered, George W. Bush did not fully grasp the magnitude of the threat in the months before 9/11 by a long shot, so how was Clinton supposed to do that all the way back in the 1990's? Given how much we knew, versus how much we did about groups like Al-Qaeda in the 90s, the steps Clinton took were extraordinary and very forward thinking. Republicans certainly did not see it coming. If you remember, George W. Bush's entire campaign in 2000 was based on the domestic front and worrying about things right here. And many people, but especially conservatives complained that "We can't be the world's police force"..... that's changed, hasn't it?
Lets face it though, Republicans would be saying these things no matter what. If Clinton went into Afghanistan, captured Osama, and September 11th still happened, "Clinton does not know how to run a war on terror." They would be criticizing him for anything less than completely stopping 9/11. Also, I'm not so sure that Clinton would have been able to go into Afghanistan anyway. I have no doubt that Republicans would have crucified him for it. The war in Bosnia and Kosovo was going on, you had the occasional flare up in tensions with Iraq, Pakistan & India were on the verge of nuclear war, North Korea was causing problems... They were complaining that the military was overstretched already, and that Clinton didn't know how to run any of it, can you imagine what would have happened if he opened up a war in Afghanistan? They would have gone head hunting. I can't reiterate enough, they themselves didn't realize the threat. The Republican controlled congress would not give Clinton the authority to go to war in Afghanistan, or anywhere else in pursuit of terrorists for that matter.... ever. As for overhauling the security and defense systems, neither the congressional, or public will was there to do the massive restructuring needed. It would have been much worse then trying to pull teeth. Why? No one understood the threat.
So when the Conservative congressmen and talk show hosts complain about how Clinton was supposedly weak on terror, just remember, hindsight is always perfect. And the Republicans of the 90's weren't exactly pushing very hard to increase our security. In fact, it could be said they were pushing against it.
You must read this:
http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/pas/pr/1996/0806b.htm 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(151 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
