- The Washington Times - Sunday, October 1, 2006

Former President Clinton’s angry, finger-pointing attempt to defend and revise his abysmal pre-September 11, 2001, record on terrorism is coming under increasing scrutiny.

That’s because he made a number of unsubstantiated claims last week during his theatrical temper-tantrum response to Fox News reporter Chris Wallace’s questions about what Mr. Clinton did, or didn’t do, to combat the terrorist threat in his eight years in office.

Stung by the harshly critical ABC network dramatization (which admittedly included some fictional scenes) of what led to the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, and which blamed his administration for not going after Osama bin Laden when it had the chance, Mr. Clinton came to the Fox interview ready to rumble.

Perhaps no one else in modern American politics is better than Mr. Clinton at the counterattack, and he gave a boffo performance that met with rave reviews from his party’s angry leftist road warriors in the blogosphere.

But it turns out the man who looked the American people straight in the eye and told them “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky” once again was playing fast and loose with the truth with his blame-shifting arguments.

Here are two examples:

After the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, Mr. Clinton told Mr. Wallace, “I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan.” But there were no full-scale military plans in the works then to drive the Taliban terrorists out of their sanctuaries and training camps, as President Bush did later.

Here’s what reporter Peter Baker of The Washington Post, no fan of the Bush administration, reported last week: “The September 11 Commission, though, found no plans for an invasion of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban, just more limited options such as plans for attacks with cruise missiles or Special Forces. And nothing in the panel’s report indicated a lack of basing rights in Uzbekistan prevented a military response.”

One of the biggest whoppers Mr. Clinton threw at the Bush administration charged that it did not hold “a single meeting about bin Laden for the nine months after I left office.”

Actually, one of the Mr. Bush’s first acts as soon as he took office was to begin a full-scale review of the terrorist threat and to draw up plans for dealing with it. Vice President Dick Cheney was one of the key figures in this initiative and there were meetings at numerous levels, including the very highest, on this very issue.

Here again, Mr. Baker shoots down Mr. Clinton’s allegation: “In fact, the Bush team held several meetings on terrorism through the interagency group known as the deputies committee and one on Sept. 4, 2001, through the principals committee composed of Cabinet officers.”

It goes without saying that Mr. Clinton, then out of office, could not possibly know what kind of highly classified meetings were being held by the White House and defense-intelligence agencies. My own sources say Mr. Cheney, assigned by Mr. Bush to make this a high priority, was pressing this initiative at multiple leadership levels as they began a top-to-bottom review soon after Mr. Bush’s inauguration at the end of January 2001.

Elsewhere in the interview, in a classic case of blame-shifting, Mr. Clinton said he wanted to take military action against the Taliban and bin Laden but could not get the intelligence agencies to agree on a plan and sign off on what he wanted to do.

Is he saying that as America’s commander in chief he could not execute the necessary orders to go after the terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan? That his hands were tied? That he wasn’t fully in charge?

We do know the military leadership in Clinton’s administration, including his own defense secretary, also opposed taking action in Afghanistan at that time. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Throughout the interview with Chris Wallace — a fair-minded journalist unfairly made the brunt of Mr. Clinton’s personal attacks — the former president kept arguing Mr. Bush did nothing on terrorism in the 7 months he was president before the September 11 attacks. The facts say otherwise, but the question now is: What did Mr. Clinton do in eight years to thwart the terrorists’ ascendancy?

Of course, other motivations were driving Mr. Clinton’s on-air tirade. He was obviously playing to the Democrats’ political base in a calculated effort to energize his party in the final weeks of an election in which Mr. Bush has successfully elevated the war on terrorism as a strategic issue in the campaign.

With his own record on terrorism under assault, Mr. Clinton finds himself at the center of an election-year debate about which party will keep us safer. But despite his latest attempt at historical revisionism, the polls tell us Mr. Bush and the GOP win this issue hands down.

Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide