Last Updated on September 11, 2021
Here’s another gift for Liberals this political year: “Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.” (The full story, as long as AOL keeps it online, is here.)
He’s telling his story to 60 Minutes two days before he is scheduled to testify before a federal panel reviewing the attacks. Clarke is quoted as acknowledging that “there’s a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too.” This generous admission of his own compliance hasn’t stopped him from writing a book about the entire situation in which he denounces the current administration for ignoring the threat of terrorism.
“I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism,” Clark said. “He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something.”
The simple fact is that we all ignored the threat of terrorism. The attacks of 9/11 were not the first terrorist acts committed in this country. But how many of us even thought about the threat on September 10, 2001? How many of us walked around thinking about the security measures designed to protect us? How many of us would have given anyone who suggested such dangers the time of day until we saw the threat become real in our living rooms on the following morning?
FDR, one of the greatest Democratic presidents in history was accused after the fact of ignoring a threat against Pearl Harbor because he knew that if it was bombed, it would mobilize the country against the Axis Powers in World War II. America wasn’t really ready to enter the war before the war came to our soil. That’s this country’s nature: we don’t want to send our sons and daughters off to war until we see the threat in a personal way. I’m not saying that we’re right to feel that way…it’s just that many Americans do feel that way.
Clarke also seems to take exception to the fact that President Bush wanted to know whether Iraq was involved. Isn’t that a logical question to ask? Shouldn’t any of America’s enemies be considered prime suspects? And for the son of a former President who went to war against a particular nation, is it so much of a stretch that the son might consider that nation a particularly obvious threat? The question, at least to me, doesn’t seem so outrageous.
And once again, in a story that belongs in the “Convenient Timing” file, a top advisor comes out with a “tell-all” book about what’s wrong in Washington two-and-a-half years after the fact leading up to a Presidential election! Where were these charges a year ago? Where were these charges two years ago? Why didn’t we hear this story a month after the attack? I tend to automatically question any stories that seem so perfectly timed…but maybe that’s just me.
