Back to the law-enforcement model?

posted at 2:15 pm on May 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

This doesn’t exactly come as a surprise.  After all, Barack Obama spent the entire presidential campaign criticizing George Bush’s military approach to terrorism, and once elected, his administration floated the nomenclature “overseas contingency operations”.  That didn’t stick after widespread derision, but the move back to the pre-Bush law-enforcement model of counterterrorism apparently has:

The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.

Under the “global justice” initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

Though the initiative is a work in progress, some senior counter-terrorism officials and administration policy-makers envision it as key to the national security strategy President Obama laid out last week — one that presumes most accused terrorists have the right to contest the charges against them in a “legitimate” setting.

The approach effectively reverses a mainstay of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism, in which global counter-terrorism was treated primarily as an intelligence and military problem, not a law enforcement one. That policy led to the establishment of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; harsh interrogations; and detentions without trials.

What it does is effectively recast the problem of foreign terrorism aimed at the US from a national-security issue to a criminal activity.  It’s nothing new; the Clinton administration tried the same approach to terrorism, to no great effect.  They sent the FBI to chase down evidence and testimony after the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and the attack on the USS Cole, which should have triggered a military response.  Indeed, that same approach led the Clinton administration to refuse to accept an offer in the mid-1990s that would have put Osama bin Laden into our hands, because they feared they couldn’t win a prosecution against him.

Also, the LA Times is a bit disingenuous in describing the policy this replaces.  Bush figured that any trials would eventually get handled by military tribunals.  Congress twice produced tribunal systems to process the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and the Bush administration had already started those trials when Obama stopped them in January.  Now Obama has discovered that he will have to proceed with the tribunals anyway, as the necessities of war do not lend themselves to the structure of criminal trials — the exact reason Bush opted for a military/intelligence approach to the war on terror.

Ask yourself this: between the convictions of the 1993 WTC attack and 9/11, how many al-Qaeda terrorists got convicted in American courts, and how many terrorist attacks did the law-enforcement approach prevent?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

and how many terrorist attacks did the law-enforcement approach prevent

New York a week or so ago comes to mind, but I have no clue if those guys were al-qaeda or just some dumb liberal american guys.

upinak on May 28, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Law enforcement deals mostly with solving crimes after they have been committed. I am sure the dead of the next attack will be highly appreciative that the government is following proper legal procedures and not infringing on anyone’s rights.

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM

9/11, for those that weren’t there, for those who weren’t hanging out the windows, wasn’t quite nasty enough to fundamentally alter our liberal worldview. So time heals all wounds and we revert back to the starting point. We press reset.

The liberal worldview will take something much bigger to shame it. Much, much bigger.

keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Totally off topic, here.

Charlie Crist, today, signed a $1 a pack increase in the cigarette tax. He did so, by invoking Reagan who said “if you want to kill something, tax it.”

This is who the GOP puts forth as a good member of the party. A guy who doesn’t even understand what Reagan meant when he said that.

lorien1973 on May 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Totally off topic, here.

Email tips@hotair.com to bring attention to other topics.

keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM

keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM

No it won’t. The only difference is how long it takes them to forget and go back to their ways. 3000+ dead = 7 years. Maybe 10,000 dead will be 8 years. You can’t change a mind of a liberal. Left to their own devices they would rather see themselves destroyed than compromise their ideology.

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM

The approach effectively reverses a mainstay of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism, in which global counter-terrorism was treated primarily as an intelligence and military problem, not a law enforcement one.

Wow! A time machine! Sherman, set the WayBack Machine for 9/10/2001. There we’ll find the relative serenity of a world at peace with no problems and harmony everywhere…. Uhh, how many times did we get attacked after 9/11 using the intelligence/military option? Now, the empty suit wants to go back to an approach without intelligence… rrriiiiiiiggghhhttt….. Boy is that smart power…. Idiots.

HomeoftheBrave on May 28, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Law enforcement deals mostly with solving crimes after they have been committed.

exactly, this is the “is it war” or “is it a crime” debate on Jihad(which declared War on us).

I am sure the dead of the next attack will be highly appreciative that the government is following proper legal procedures and not infringing on anyone’s rights.

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM

ah, but Obama will be violating rights. Those of the Community and its citizens which get attacked like on 911 or 93 WTC, etc. Not to mention the Economic Liberties we all will lose as the attack will crater the Economy like after 9/11

jp on May 28, 2009 at 2:26 PM

“…. the Clinton administration tried the same approach to terrorism, to no great effect.”

……… what could go wrong?

Seven Percent Solution on May 28, 2009 at 2:26 PM

New York a week or so ago comes to mind, but I have no clue if those guys were al-qaeda or just some dumb liberal american guys.

upinak on May 28, 2009 at 2:18 PM

BUT, that wasn’t between 1993 and 9/11. Small technical point, but it was the question asked.

todler on May 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Talk about playing the odds. I hope we don’t get attacked again or barry is going to end up like Saddam.

elduende on May 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM

The liberal worldview will take something much bigger to shame it. Much, much bigger.

keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Yes. And I say “Let’s roll”.

zeebeach on May 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM

sadly, tragically, unfortunately…….you’re right

Liberals are ‘secular fanatics’ who make the often-reviled ‘religious fanatics’ look tame and docile by comparison

We’re facing a Real Enemy who wants to kill our ideas and values–and us, if they deem it necessary.

Janos Hunyadi on May 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM

keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Nothing will change the liberal world view as long as they are allowed to get away with making excuses. Terrorists could wipe DC off the map and the liberal world would stick to the same non-working methodology. They are slow learning idiots for whom a college education was waisted on.

jdkchem on May 28, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Charlie Crist, today, signed a $1 a pack increase in the cigarette tax. He did so, by invoking Reagan who said “if you want to kill something, tax it.”

lorien1973 on May 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Any word on a politician tax?

WashJeff on May 28, 2009 at 2:29 PM

keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM

the thing is the Secular Humanist Left are defacto Allied with the Jihadist and other anti-Liberty jackals all over the world.

Take the issue of Energy. The Left in this country attack all Economically sensible means of Energy(Oil, Coal, Nuke) and effectively have helped to hamstrung the Economy and with it Economic Growth and Prosperity.

OPEC, Chavez, Putin, etc…are effectively doing the same thing

jp on May 28, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Maybe 10,000 dead will be 8 years. You can’t change a mind of a liberal.

Yes, you can. A lot of liberals changed their minds on 9/11. Of course, you can’t change all of them, but you don’t have to. You need only to change the view of the majority, the moderates, you need only change the view of what is acceptable in polite society.

But to do that we need to have a lot more than 10,000 dead. No problem for an atomic bomb. Liberals, by their very emotional nature, are easily shocked. The radicals who currently hold the moral high ground will be sidelined and ostracized by the new political reality.

keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Soft & weak. It is a move that will strengthen Muslim propagandists.

Connie on May 28, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Ask the sailors’ families of the USS Cole about that law enforcement model…

d1carter on May 28, 2009 at 2:32 PM

So much love for the religion of pieces !

christene on May 28, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Ask yourself this: between the convictions of the 1993 WTC attack and 9/11, how many al-Qaeda terrorists got convicted in American courts, and how many terrorist attacks did the law-enforcement approach prevent?

Ummm, none.

So in Leftard World it was completely effective.

catmman on May 28, 2009 at 2:39 PM

So, according to liberals, America actually CAN be The World’s Policeman.

logis on May 28, 2009 at 2:39 PM

They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option

Just out of curiosity, how does the FBI question a suspect that has asked for a lawyer and invoked his right to remain silent?

rw on May 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Well, I have prefered the way it worked for the past 7.5 years, where my family and friends stayed alive.

But if my family and friends are killed by terrorists after the policy change, I’ll just have to take heart that the terrorists will be arrested after the conclusion of the investigation.

myrenovations on May 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM

So how do you give Miranda warnings before a Predator drone attack?

Wethal on May 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM

“Global justice initiative”

Think that might mean something different to a former community organizer than it does to a senior Justice Dept. official?

hawksruleva on May 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Back to the law-enforcement model?

Yep, and we all know how well that worked under the Clintoon administration…9-11 ring a bell?

As long as our government keeps our military’s hands tied and fights the war against fascist Islam as a law enforcement/police action we will not be victorious!

The pacifist Obama administration is going backwards and undoing any success we’ve had in this war and it will be innocent Americans that will again pay the price…smart power my azz!

Liberty or Death on May 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Just out of curiosity, how does the FBI question a suspect that has asked for a lawyer and invoked his right to remain silent?

rw on May 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Well, we probably can’t question them at all until they’ve tried to kill some people. Once we’ve reached that point, lawyers will be immediately available for the terrorists, I mean suspects.

The FBI will have a rapid-response team of lawyers and ACLU spokespeople ready to travel wherever the action is.

hawksruleva on May 28, 2009 at 2:43 PM

As long as our government keeps our military’s hands tied and fights the war against fascist Islam as a law enforcement/police action we will not be victorious!

The pacifist Obama administration is going backwards and undoing any success we’ve had in this war and it will be innocent Americans that will again pay the price…smart power my azz!

Liberty or Death on May 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM

They may be gambling that al-Qaeda is weak enough now that can’t stage a new attack in the next 3-4 years. They’d be wrong about that, of course.

But if they’re right, they get all sorts of international kudos. Well, not really, but they don’t understand that yet.

hawksruleva on May 28, 2009 at 2:46 PM

This war is won in the hallways
Alleys
Streets and basements of the world

Not courtrooms.

blatantblue on May 28, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Yes. And I say “Let’s roll”.

zeebeach on May 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Let me clarify…I’m not hoping for a catastrophic terrorist attack to “wake up” the libs. When I say let’s roll I’m talking about citizens and conservatives taking back our country before we reach the point of no return.

zeebeach on May 28, 2009 at 2:46 PM

I am sure the dead of the next attack will be highly appreciative that the government is following proper legal procedures and not infringing on anyone’s rights.

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM

The victims of 9/11, many of whom had no idea who was killing them that day or why, could not be reached for comment.

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2009 at 2:49 PM

So, according to liberals, America actually CAN be The World’s Policeman.

logis on May 28, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Which is exactly how Europe will spin it. Just like the flip side of the “higher moral ground” argument, the libs create the even more reasons for our enemies to hate us, while making us less safe.

hawksruleva on May 28, 2009 at 2:49 PM

What it does is effectively recast the problem of foreign terrorism aimed at the US from a national-security issue to a criminal activity.

And we all know that the root of all crime is poverty. So does this mean food stamps for AQ families?

BuckeyeSam on May 28, 2009 at 2:49 PM

The victims of 9/11, many of whom had no idea who was killing them that day or why, could not be reached for comment.

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2009 at 2:49 PM

How about their lawyers? Oh, I guess they never go the chance for legal counsel, either.

hawksruleva on May 28, 2009 at 2:50 PM

I sincerely hope we are not hit again, but if we are, I will blame Dear Leader.

rbj on May 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM

And we all know that the root of all crime is poverty. So does this mean food stamps for AQ families?

BuckeyeSam on May 28, 2009 at 2:49 PM

We’re already doing it for Hamas.

hawksruleva on May 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM

how many terrorist attacks did the law-enforcement approach prevent?

By it’s very nature law-enforcement is almost always after the fact. Kind of like a funeral.

MB4 on May 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM

BuckeyeSam on May 28, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Every good liberal knows that law enforcement is only effective when combined with social programs and sesitivity training.

Now about the arrest warrents for the ethically challenged vicitms of anglo oppression.

Laura in Maryland on May 28, 2009 at 2:53 PM

s/b Warrants. D’OH!

Laura in Maryland on May 28, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Don’t see how we can miss being hit again with all the jihadists chortling away over our new , enlightened approach to their activities.

jeanie on May 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM

How about their lawyers? Oh, I guess they never go the chance for legal counsel, either.

hawksruleva on May 28, 2009 at 2:50 PM

I wonder how many lawyers were killed on 9/11?

As for after the fact, one lawyer ripped off over $130,000 from 9/11 victims’ families, to support her gambling habit.

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2009 at 2:59 PM

The law enforcement model is not capable of stopping attacks, as up to that point, no laws have been broken.

MarkTheGreat on May 28, 2009 at 2:59 PM

We will be attacked again, why should we not. There is no single reason AQ likes us more now than 10 years ago. So it’s just a matter of time.
Just like our international weakness was used before we are sending a sign to the enemy that we are not serious about winning this war. They know that by reducing the pressure now they can rebuild and plan more attacks.
The FBI investigating after the fact will not do squat – unless of course we get the FBI to act like they did against American citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco, then I’d be all for handing this over to the FBI.

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 3:00 PM

No it won’t. The only difference is how long it takes them to forget and go back to their ways. 3000+ dead = 7 years weeks. Maybe 10,000 dead will be 8 years. You can’t change a mind of a liberal.

Fixed, and I’m probably giving them too much credit at that.

hindmost on May 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM

So who wants to guess what will be the first city to be hit? New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles. Or maybe a smaller city that won’t expect an attack like residents of the biggest cities will be expecting. New Orleans, St. Louis, Seattle, San Francisco, Miami, Atlanta.

Ceroth on May 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Law Enforcement.pfffft.
Jihadis dont care about search warrants or due process. Try serving a warrant to those bastards and 1. they will laugh in your face and 2. The will shoot you w/ their Rocket launcher.

Good Luck.

5u93rm4n on May 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM

The liberal worldview will take something much bigger to shame it. Much, much bigger.

keep the change on May 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM

How much bigger? Will it need to their personal moment of judgement, or will something less momentous, such as the apocalypse, suffice?

One of the common characteristics of a ‘liberal’ is that they do not feel shame when they should, but instead construct some ever-more perverted form of ‘reasoning’ by which to justify their offense. None of us is very good, but those of us who can feel shame and learn from it at least have a chance of moving forward from emotional adolescence.

YiZhangZhe on May 28, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Janos Hunyadi on May 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Reference the link listed here…

http://www.thethirdjihad.com/obsmay09.php

oldleprechaun on May 28, 2009 at 3:10 PM

They sent the FBI to chase down evidence and testimony after the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and the attack on the USS Cole, which should have triggered a military response.

Should have triggered a military response? Against what target?

The clusterf*ck in Iraq tells us that blindly striking out against suspected terrorist havens isn’t the way to go, either.

Constantine on May 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM

When we have an administration peopled almost totally with lawyers, who would expect anything but a return to the “law enforcement model?

It’s all the Obama gang know. This model is well within their comfort zone.

It just won’t keep us any safer than it did prior to 9/11.

Remember well how Cheney said that the 9/11 mastermind practically giggled about meeting with his lawyer when he got to New York???

Guess Gitmo and waterboarding was a real surprise to him.

marybel on May 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Ceroth on May 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM

My best guess: Seattle

DarkCurrent on May 28, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Constantine on May 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Any country harboring them. We should also have cracked down on Saudi Arabia also since a lot of the 9/11 crew came from there. If we were not such slaves for their oil we could actually act in our own self interest. People laugh at the green energy thing, but imagine if we did not need oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela – we could kick them were it hurt and they would know it.

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Ceroth on May 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM

My guess, LA or any place that has a large illegal community in which they can hide.

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM

I’m more concern about the reversal after the attack that they are positioning for us to have, happen. Trying to prevent a backslash and save their assess, they are bound to react with such an excess. That will make pale any nutroots worst imagined Bush nighmares.

El Coqui on May 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM

I agree with you on Saudi Arabia… without the oil we’d be taking a much harder line with them.

Constantine on May 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM

They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said… The approach effectively reverses a mainstay of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism, in which global counter-terrorism was treated primarily as an intelligence and military problem, not a law enforcement one. That policy led to the establishment of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; harsh interrogations; and detentions without trials.

Apparently, Obooba’s primary concern is not to cause terrorist plotters any heartburn, rather than not to allow attacks on American soil/targets.

Summary: be gentle with Muslims who kill Christians and Jews.

Akzed on May 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Apparently, Obooba’s Hussein’s primary concern is not to cause terrorist plotters any heartburn, rather than not to allow attacks on American soil/targets.
Summary: be gentle with Muslims who kill Christians and Jews.
Akzed on May 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Fixed it for me, in deference to Bill O’R.

Akzed on May 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Totally off topic, here.

Charlie Crist, today, signed a $1 a pack increase in the cigarette tax. He did so, by invoking Reagan who said “if you want to kill something, tax it.”

This is who the GOP puts forth as a good member of the party. A guy who doesn’t even understand what Reagan meant when he said that.

lorien1973 on May 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM

That’s why Charlie Crist won’t get a senate seat in 2010. That’s why most students in florida Public Schools dislike Charlie Crist. Personally, I dislike his spray tan. His tan is as genuine as he is.

Bottom line, he’s going to lose big. Rubio has the Tea Partyers behind him and Crist doesn’t.

Key West Reader on May 28, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Obama: The New, Improved, Half-Black, George W. Bush!

Now if he’d just get rid of his idiotic health care agenda and get rid of the ideas of making Americans drive roller skates on freeways, and at least slow the deficit spending to the Bush levels? … heh. I could deal with this.

Key West Reader on May 28, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Constantine on May 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Wow, getalife’s lawn mower showed up.

Tell us again how you would have had Bush prevent the 9/11 attacks, which in reality he inherited from Democrat Bill Clinton.

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Not completely on topic here eihter, but when is the administration going to produce Bin Laden? Thoughout the campaign Barry criticized Bush & Co. He’s had since mid January at the helm after an unbelievably cooperative transition to find the guy.

EconomicNeocon on May 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Left to their own devices they would rather see themselves everything destroyed than compromise their ideology.

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM

MarkTheGreat on May 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Wow, getalife’s lawn mower showed up.
Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM

What does that even mean?
Dude, you’ve totally run out of opening lines. Here’s some help:

Wow, getalife’s illegal immigrant nanny showed up.
Wow, getalife’s velvet Elvis painting fell off the wall.
Wow, getalife’s containment field has been breached.
Wow, getalife’s cheese blintz got overcooked.
Wow, getalife’s hairdresser ran out of mousse.

In order to remain true to your particular idiom feel free to discard the ones that might be in danger of actually making sense. You won’t hurt my feelings.

Constantine on May 28, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Constantine on May 28, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Tell us again how you would have had Bush prevent the 9/11 attacks, which in reality he inherited from Democrat Bill Clinton.

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Tell us again how you would have had Bush prevent the 9/11 attacks, which in reality he inherited from Democrat Bill Clinton.

Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2009 at 5:09 PM

By completely dismantling Al Qaeda in a preemptive strike.

For the record, we’re not giving the FBI enough credit. The branch that would be involved with this is the National Security Branch, and they aren’t going to be playing a prevent defense. However, I totally disagree with this policy. What we need to do is send in Delta Force and SEALs. The guys trained to cut terrorists throats.

Cr4sh Dummy on May 28, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Tell us again how you would have had Bush prevent the 9/11 attacks, which in reality he inherited from Democrat Bill Clinton.
Del Dolemonte on May 28, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Bush “inherited” the 9/11 attacks he was warned about? You’ll have to explain how that works. Are you arguing that if Clinton had bombed somebody the attack wouldn’t have happened?

Constantine on May 28, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Does it really matter? Both Clinton and Bush did nothing before 9/11 to actively combat AQ. Bush did the right thing after 9/11 by making it a military action rather than law enforcement. We need to keep that approach going and not go back to the “ready to be attacked status”.

dpierson on May 28, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Wrong question.

Obama cites the “success” of the law enforcement model
Question, Does the law enforcement model work?

The 1993 WTC attack, everyone who was caught and tried was convicted, true.

How many were not caught? 12 out of 171

Who financed the 1993 WTC attack? KSM, yep THAT KSM.
Where did KSM get the money? OBL, yep that OBL.

How did Clinton react to the attack, he urged calm.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12
/5/142108.shtml

“I would plead with the American people and the good people of New York to keep your courage up and go on about your lives. I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this,” Clinton said.”

And as all good leaders, he lead by example, he didn’t “overreact” in fact he really didn’t even react.

Ya just gotta love this revelation to insight after 911.

“Chuck Pena, senior defense analyst for the Cato Institute, agreed that Clinton’s actions after the 1993 attack failed to match his words. But, Pena said, the circumstances were different than they are today.
“[Clinton's] actions were not necessarily 100 percent reflective of his rhetoric, nor were they effective.” However, “there are some reasons for some of that. At the time, we were not looking at four or five thousand casualties as a result of a single terrorist act.””

Translation: Clinton didn’t realize that the objective of the 1993 WTC bombing, blowing out the base support of the building, was intended to bring the building down! With everyone in it!

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing.

Shiite militant terrorists with connections to bin Laden are thought to have been responsible for the attacks.

“The explosion appears to be the work of terrorists. The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished,” Clinton said. “America takes care of its own.”

And then did nothing, nada, Zippo, Nyet.

“Pena said one must consider that terrorism was not the high-priority issue it is today.

“Part of it reflects, at that time, a certain tolerance for terrorism that was, compared to September 11, pretty small scale. I think the Clinton administration may have been overly cautious about not wanting to respond disproportionately to the terrorist acts that were perpetrated.””

We have to cut Clinton some slack here cuz as we all have heard for YEARS about Clinton “All he did was get a BJ” and that is obviously true.

1998 Embassy Bombings

The attacks were blamed on bin Laden’s terrorist group, al-Qaeda, which by this time had developed into a worldwide network.

On Aug. 20, 1998, Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan.

“Our target was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today,” Clinton said at the time.

BTW: the pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, we were told was a Saddam AQ operation.

2000 USS Cole Bombing

On Oct. 12, 2000, terrorists bombed the USS Cole as it sat in the Yemeni port of Aden. The bomb killed 17 U.S. sailors.

“If, as it now appears, it was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act,” he said.

“We will find out who was responsible, and hold them accountable. If their intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail, utterly.”

Clinton,

1993, “trying to figure out who did this and why”
Clinton said the United States was “absolutely determined to oppose the cowardly cruelty of terrorists, wherever we can.”

Clinton, 2000,

“”We will find out who was responsible, and hold them accountable”
“If, as it now appears, it was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act,” he said.

Does this need an explanation?

DSchoen on May 28, 2009 at 6:19 PM

How much bigger? Will it need to their personal moment of judgement, or will something less momentous, such as the apocalypse, suffice?

Nothing is big enough to make a good number of liberals think we should do something for our safety. They figure we deserve being attacked (and I include Obama in this group) anyway. The obvious and only solution, as far as they are concerned, is that we respond by giving the terrorists all our stuff.

Share our wealth. It is the only right thing to do. Obviously, we wouldn’t have been attacked if we weren’t all arrogant, greedy bastards taking more than our fair share. And if they want the whole country, or to institute Sharia law? Well, we should understand that they have a point, and should take that under consideration.

After all, many of them believe that the Supreme Court should render judgments not based solely on U.S. law.

If and when we get another attack, we will be told to be “understanding” about it.

Alana on May 28, 2009 at 6:21 PM

BUT, that wasn’t between 1993 and 9/11. Small technical point, but it was the question asked.
todler on May 28,

Todler, that’s the point.

The “planed attack” DIDN’T happen under the Bush model.

Prior to 911, we were using the Clinton model of “law enforcement” or after the fact/attack.

DSchoen on May 28, 2009 at 6:32 PM

So, according to liberals, America actually CAN be The World’s Policeman.
logis on May 28

Can and should be The World’s Policeman.

Good point!

DSchoen on May 28, 2009 at 6:37 PM

Just out of curiosity, how does the FBI question a suspect that has asked for a lawyer and invoked his right to remain silent?
rw on May 28

D’oh!

I’m still trying to figure out how, Matthew Alexander, (not his real name), determined through his own interrogations of 300 detainees and the supervision of a thousand more, that 95% of all suicide bombers in Iraq WERE motivated by tails of abuse at Gitmo.

How do you interrogate someone AFTER they blowed them self’s up!

DSchoen on May 28, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Will we get Jaime Gorelick’s wall back, too?

Kafir on May 28, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Constantine
Against what target?

How bout OBL?

The Clinton admin knew who OBL was and knew he was the money man for the 1993 WTC bombing.

Richard Miniter, Brussels-based investigative journalist.

Richard Miniter: One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What’s more, bin Laden’s attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton’s watch.

And the attempted murder of tens of thousands!
If the 1993 WTC bombing was “successful” the tower would have instantly collapsed with no one getting out. ALL DEAD.

Richard Miniter

Why did Clinton treat the attack as a law-enforcement matter? Several reasons. In the first few days, Clinton refused to believe that the towers had been bombed at all — even though the FBI made that determination within hours. He speculated a electrical transformer had exploded or a bank heist went bad.

More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to blame if the terrorists were released on a “technicality” or if foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. Oh well, he tried.

Lopez: What most surprised you to learn about the Clinton years and terrorism?

Miniter: Three things:
1) That the Sept. 11 attacks were planned in May 1998 in the Khalden Camp in southeastern Afghanistan, according to American and British intelligence officers I interviewed. In other words, the 9/11 attacks were planned on Clinton’s watch.
2) The sheer number of bin Laden’s attacks on Americans during the Clinton years.
3) And how much senior Clinton-administration officials knew about bin Laden and how little they did about it.

Lopez: This sounds like this could all be right-wing propaganda. How can you convince readers otherwise?
Miniter: Most of my best sources were senior Clinton officials, including both of his national-security advisers, his first CIA director, Clinton’s counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, and others. Plus, I interviewed scores of career federal officials. None of them are card-carrying members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
And, while I shine the light on Clinton’s shortcomings in dealing with bin Laden, I also give credit where it is due. Chapter nine is all about one of the greatest (and least-known) Clinton victories over bin Laden — the successful thwarting of a series of plots to murder thousands of Americans on Millennium night, 1999.

DSchoen on May 28, 2009 at 9:47 PM

I’m trying to think, who scare me more Osama or Obama????

beachkatie on May 28, 2009 at 11:18 PM

I sincerely hope we are not hit again, but if we are, I will blame Dear Leader.

rbj on May 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM

And dear leader will blame Bush. The difference? More Americans will believe dear leader, thanks to the constant parroting of his talking points by the MSM. Don’t blame leftists for being leftists, blame the press for not calling them on it.

runawayyyy on May 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM