After years of unwarranted criticism from the "vast, right-wing conspiracy," I must balance out the lashing Bill Clinton has taken with -- what else? -- constructive criticism.
The CIA grudgingly released a report Aug. 21, described as a "19-page executive summary," detailing CIA failures to recognize, assess and counter the threats posed by al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
I concede that, as Inspector General John Helgerson said, there was no "single point of failure" that could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks.
Nevertheless, parts of the report are quite troubling, not the least of which is the lack of a "comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden" between 1994 and 2001. Also missing from the CIA intelligence was a "comprehensive report laying out the threats of 2001."
Former CIA chief George Tenet obviously took great exception to what has come out about his agency's perceived faults.
But Tenet, who stepped down as Director of Central Intelligence in 2004, served at the pleasure of former President Bill Clinton.
Clinton is the one big name not in the story, but I cannot help but think the commander-in-chief and head of state and government had every capability to push the CIA into following up on al-Qaida and bin Laden.
And Slick Willie obviously cannot claim ignorance as his defense. He, more than anyone, has touted his administration's determined work on the matter, to the extent that some have said he was obsessed with bin Laden.
Operation Infinite Reach is proof that Clinton understood the threat. Following the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on Afghan sites believed to be connected to al-Qaida, as well as a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Forgive me for being somewhat tough. What I find here is an inability on Clinton's part to instill the leadership and motivation at the CIA to improve upon the conditions outlined in this report.
I cannot take the former president to task on a broader scale, however; in his much ballyhooed interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton readily admits -- when asked if he did enough in regards to Osama bin Laden -- "No, because I didn't get him."
But try, he did indeed. And fail, he did that, too.
But the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden is a far different matter than the failure to have his top intelligence agency follow through on these threats that he claims were taken as seriously as possible.
Again, forgive me for thinking Bill Clinton was expertly capable of getting what he wanted from his underlings.
But maybe the worst part about all of this is the fact it's even a point of discussion.
I write this with an eye toward how the historians will treat the likes of Tenet, Clinton, etc. How any of this is vital to the ongoing hunt for bin Laden and al-Qaida escapes me, as well as current CIA Director Michael Hayden, who was forced to release the report by a law signed by President George W. Bush.
Furthermore, I won't hold my breath thinking better intelligence would have helped the Bush administration commission the U.S. military in a way that would have led to the capture or killing of bin Laden and avoided the monstrous disaster known as the war in Iraq. A number of high-ranking Bush administration members (including Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz), as it has been well-documented, were involved with the Project for the New American Century, a group whose idea of America's "vital role in maintaining peace and security" in the Middle East apparently meant forcing democracy (and U.S.-friendly oil revenue laws) down the throats of a people who for centuries managed their own affairs in a way that worked for them but not for corporate interests in the pocket of neo-conservative politicians and ideologues.
No, the Sept. 11 terror attacks likely were unstoppable. I venture to say anyone who says differently says so to the detriment of a political foe. But I think it's far more hopeful to think the truth of this matter, in agonizing detail, will someday come out.
Read more...
