Friday, September 09, 2005

Clinton, Bush, and Beyond

David Horowitz reviews Clinton’s failure to address the Islamic threat and Arab terrorism. He notes:

The PLO had created the first terrorist training camps, invented suicide bombings and been the chief propaganda machine behind the idea that terrorist armies were really missionaries for “social justice.” Yet, among foreign leaders Arafat was Clinton’s most frequent White House guest. Far from treating Arafat as an enemy of civilized order and an international pariah, the Clinton Administration was busily cultivating him as a “partner for peace.”
As I recently pointed out, Bush at first didn’t change this policy. Only after Sharon brought back evidence from Arafat’s compound, did the administration change its stance.

With regard to the terrorist threat, Clinton, however, had eight years in office and the threat was clear from the ’93 WTC attack.

Six Palestinian and Egyptian conspirators responsible for the attack were tried in civil courts and got life sentences like common criminals, but its mastermind escaped. He was identified as Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi intelligence agent. This was a clear indication to authorities that the atrocity was no mere criminal event, and that it involved more than individual terrorists; it involved hostile terrorist states.
Still, the idea that terrorism wasn’t just the result of a criminal organization but the tip of the Islamic iceberg was unimaginable to the Clinton administration given the PC atmosphere that discouraged further inquiry. The current administration now holds that there is an ideological movement but they are unclear about the exact nature of that ideology. To some degree this is to be expected in the early stages of a conflict. However, confusion and hesitation are now mainly due to the PC atmosphere and the all-religions-are-good philosophy. As a consequence we indiscriminately search the unlikeliest suspects, continue to allow entry from Islamic countries, and fail to secure our borders.

However, the administration has succeeded in coordinating a vigilant intelligence campaign that has prevented several terrorist attacks at home. It has broken down the walls between intelligence units and encouraged them to monitor Islamic organization, which was forbidden during past administrations. Has it done more than slow down the terrorist machine?

No doubt the administration is hesitant to take actions it knows will invoke a backlash from the left. The recent hysteria over Gitmo is a case in point. The left has giving notice that it intends to oppose stronger actions to fight Islamism. Nevertheless, there are those on the right that are getting impatient with the hesitation of the President. I mentioned before Michael Ledeen. Here are a few more: a b c (hat tip Tracinski.)

With all due respect to the President, I believe it is time to demand more. However, the focus should be in identifying the next Presidential candidate. This is an opportunity for candidates of either party to outline and debate a tough policy. The election of 1960 revolved around charges that the other candidate was “soft on communism.” The 2008 election can revolve around the question: who would be tough on the Islamic threat to civilization?


Blogger LA Sunset said...

Another good job there Jason.

I have been telling people that this issue is bigger than any one President and will outlast the current Oval Office Occupant. The pre-election focus needs to be on who can best lead the nation in this troubled time? Who can put aside politics and do what is best for the nation? But you watch, it will quickly turn into the last two elections, only the names will be changed.

And as for the Dems, if they think that Hillary can lead in this troubled time, they had better think again.

9/9/05, 3:01 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Failing to secure our borders is going to reap a horrific harvest. Neither political party seems willing to take the necessary step of risk profiling.

As I see it, one of GWB's faults is his belief that all people have some inherent good and will appreciate Western freedoms. Not the case with Islamists.

9/9/05, 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a young military person screws up, he or she is held accountable. I am appalled by the fact that none of the principal leaders in our government under the Clinton administration have been held accountable for their negligence. Not Clinton, not Albreight, or her predecessor, no one in INS, no one in the Border Patrol, not Reno, and certainly not Gorelick.

State Department policy with respect to the issuance of visas to the USA from middle eastern countries played a large role in what happened on 9/11/2001; and I don't think that much has changed in that regard. There are too many "students" attending our universities, and too many Arabs unaccounted for . . .

What killed so many Americans on that eventful day was of course radical Muslims, but so too did the incompetence of government officers who not only took a solemn oath to serve the American people, but who were also being paid hefty salaries to protect us. They did not do that, did they?

9/10/05, 2:51 PM  

<< Home