Clarifications On Clinton And Bin Laden

An anonymous reader suggested that I took a cheap shot at Bill Clinton in regard to Osama bin Laden, so I will gladly take this opportunity to clarify things a bit. Let's review some history and facts! [Anonymous's comments in red, mine in blue...]

Come on. I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but the game of hindsight leaves no one untouched.

First and foremost, the sole true responsibility for the attacks on 9/11 rests on the shoulders of Osama bin Laden and his minions. Period.

Now, in regard to those who could have had a hand in preventing those attacks, you're absolutely correct that it's easy for us to sit around and chat about it now, when things weren't nearly as clear back when these events happened. There is plenty of blame to go around - that's the nature of hindsight.

That being said, Clinton holds a special place in this failure for several reasons. First, it was the Clinton administration that ignored several attacks (WTC1, Blackhawk Down in Somalia, USS Cole, etc.) by bin Laden in the run-up to 9/11, prompting bin Laden to conduct bigger and bigger attacks without fear of reprisals from the U.S.

It was Clinton's decision to treat terrorism as a legal battle rather than a military one, and it was his Deputy Attorney General, Jamie Gorelick, who directed the efforts to create a wall of separation between the various intelligence and enforcement agencies that could have prevented these attacks. For example, by putting these prosecutions into courts, much of the testimony was sealed in grand juries rather than being shared from the intelligence community (CIA) to the enforcement community (FBI). The dots were there, but they couldn't be connected because Gorelick's wall ran solidly between them.

First, the 9/11 Commission found that there was no credible evidence that Bill Clinton explicitly turned down Bin Laden. I don't totally understand the dynamics, but there were problems with authority, indictments, etc.

The 9/11 Commission is hardly an authoritative source, with the very same Jamie Gorelick being one of the chairpersons. Do you honestly think she would condemn her own previous contributions in allowing the 9/11 attacks? Not a chance. The whole thing was a farce from day one. Now, regarding my assertion that Clinton turned down bin Laden, that is documented fact. I can find multiple sources to support my claim, including Clinton's own words...what do you have (other than the suspect 9/11 Commission report)?

Second, there are some who say that GOP stalling prior to the 1998 airstrikes against Sudan and Afghanistan may have allowed Bin Laden to slip away from one of the targets.

In regard to the GOP stall, I would ask for your sources. That's the first I've heard of it. From what I've read, the Republicans did everything they could to support Clinton during that time period, even at the risk of angering their own base.

Third, let's not forget how Bin Laden came to be. During which President's watch did he get weapons, etc. from the US? I'll give you a hint...it starts with R and rhymes with Beggin'. Maybe he's to blame for 9/11.

I'll grant you that in retrospect it was a bad idea to train and supply bin Laden. At the time, however, he was viewed as an ally against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. There may have been some indicators at the time that bin Laden would double cross us, but I don't have that information one way or another. I guess it comes down to making the best decision you can at the time with the information available to you. It turns out we were wrong on him.

Fourth, international politics is a complicated game, where seemingly beneficial relationships can turn sour (another fine example...Donald Rumsfeld happily shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 80s). Probably every president has made some mistakes.

You are correct that politics is complex, especially when relationships turn sour. They have all made mistakes - after all, they are human, too! I sure wouldn't want the job!

Now I'm not saying that Clinton is not to blame. I'm not saying he is. I'm not saying Reagan is to blame. I'm not saying he's not. The problem with your cheap shot (and that's what it was) is that it's hard to foresee and predict the consequences of certain actions on the world stage. Had Clinton known in the mid-1990s that Bin Laden would successfully orchestrate 9/11, I am 100% sure he would have held Bin Laden if he had the opportunity and even if he had no evidence and it would violate human rights, etc. (just like I think any president, and probably any person, would). The problem was he didn't know. Was it a mistake for him to underestimate the danger (if he even did that)? Perhaps. But no more so than any of the other 100s of people who contributed to the governtmental, intelligence, and bureaucratic failures that allowed al Qaeda to pull off 9/11.

The bottom line is the situation is way more complicated than "nasty ol' Bill Clinton let Osama go and do 9/11."

With all due respect, I don't believe I took a cheap shot. Obviously, it can be hard to see consequences down the road. But, let's review the timeline here. Osama bin Laden's rash of attacks began in the early 1990's, and by 1996, when Sudan pitched the offer to Clinton, bin Laden was already named as a co-conspirator in some of the attacks. Clinton already knew without a doubt that bin Laden was big trouble. The truth of the matter is that Clinton was afraid of the political fall-out of accepting the responsibility of taking in bin Laden, hoping that some other country would do the dirty work of killing him.

Yes, there were a lot of people who contributed to the failures that allowed the 9/11 attacks. But, I don't think it is at all unfair to say that many of those failures lay squarely at the feet of Bill Clinton.

There's my two cents.