<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, April 06, 2004


A CALL FOR "THE BIN LADEN COMMISSION" 

We should figure out how Al Qaeda got as big as it did during the Clinton Administration


When Bill Clinton was inaugurated President in January 1993, none of us had ever heard of Osama bin Laden. The terrorist group, Al Qaeda, had yet to be formed. However, over the next 8 years, bin Laden was able to become the world's most destructive terrorist, hell bent on creating an organization that would throw the United States into chaos and change it forever. Bin Laden's group, Al Qaeda, became the vehicle which ensured that 9/11 jolted America into dealing with terrorism, head on.

The last 2 years have been punctuated with one question; How did 9/11 happen? Washington D.C. has been embroiled in finger pointing, accusations, and the ruination of political careers over whether or not any of us Americans were to blame for the fact that 4 hijacked airplanes resulted in the deaths of 3,000 American civilians. All of these questions, and the creation of a 9/11 Commission, have been misguided and short-sighted. Al Qaeda is not an enemy state like the Soviet Union was to us during the Cold War.

What no one has asked is how and why Al Qaeda got to be as big as it was by 9/11. What we should be asking is how did the Clinton Administration let Osama bin Laden grow from a little known war lord into America's most wanted man. We should demand to know why the Clinton Administration did very little to stem the growing size and popularity of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

The 9/11 Commission treats Al Qaeda as if it were some country like the Soviet Union or Communist China that grew inexorably and inevitably into an enemy state. The only thing it wants to know is why were we victims of a sneak attack. Instead, we should be wondering why the Clinton security team barely mentioned bin Laden and Al Qaeda in their last security report. An "Al Qaeda Commission" should be asking how a presidential administration allowed a ruthless gang during the 1990's to become such a destructive force by 9/11.

If you want to read more about the final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress then check out: Daily News Brief, Outside the Beltway, Pejmanesque, Wizbang, Blogs for Bush, Croooow Blog, eTalkinghead, Tonecluster, Glenn Reynolds. And Captain's Quarters has 4 posts so far on this. I first learned about this Washington Times story through the Drudge Report.
Update: Thanks to
Left Coast Conservative for linking to this piece. Please check out Dave J's site, it's a good one!

Update II: A note of gratitude to
SISU linking to this piece. Check out Sisu's latest on Dick Lugar, and WalMart. In addition, The JG Spot has comments on this, too. SISU and JG Spot are additions to our blogroll!


Blogroll THE GALVIN OPINION and BOOKMARK it to your FAVORITES.


|


Clinton Security Team's Scant Mention of Al Qaeda 

Washington Times points out that "Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report"

Here is the report: A National Security Strategy for A Global Age, Dec 2000



Washington Times said: The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.

The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book.


Check out what the post above in which I said that the 9/11 Commission is too narrow in scope and that we should have looked into how Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda got to be so powerful.

Update: Others who have mentioned the Washington Post article include, Cold Fury, Hobbs Online, Classical Values, Pardon my English, NZPundit, and Ramblings' Journal.

|




This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?