We both know there are a lot of versions of that story, a lot of different takes on how serious the offers from Khartoum really were, even what the offers were. And you know that in bureaucracies, in an administration, even if you're all on the same team, different people are going to spin things different ways, and lay blame -- you experienced some of that, right?
Sure.
So, I'm not sure we'll ever know the full truth about who really tried to do what. And meanwhile, the Washington Post, which has been doing some of the best reporting on the Clinton failures of policy toward al-Qaida, today turned to the young Bush administration's failures. And the bottom line is, look, the Clinton administration got religion about al-Qaida with the embassy bombings in 1998. Maybe it was late, maybe ultimately it wasn't enough, but it was a high priority in the White House after that point. In the Bush White House, terror just didn't have the same sense of urgency that it had in those final two years of the Clinton administration until Sept. 11. The Washington Post says Bush stopped the gunboats that were on patrol off Afghanistan to bomb al-Qaida and bin Laden, and they passed up some potential opportunities to kill bin Laden -- there was a feeling that the Clinton administration was too focused on bin Laden personally. Donald Rumsfeld vetoed a request to move $600 million from missile defense to anti-terror work ...
But Joan, first of all, in the bureaucracy of Washington, there are always people screaming they don't have enough money to do what they want to do, so that's a hollow whining. Look, this used to be my job. Between you and me, cruise missiles don't do diddly squat against terrorists, so firing them at a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum or tent camps in Afghanistan was basically an enticement to a guy like Osama bin Laden. That was what went wrong after the embassies were bombed. Clinton makes this grandiloquent speech, and by golly, nobody can give a speech like Bill Clinton. He promised the perpetrators would be brought to justice -- hooey! And Osama bin Laden knew it. And the reason bin Laden is either dead today or in total shock, is that he could not imagine the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush. But I'll tell you something: I worked for a great president, and I'm grateful to Ronald Reagan until the day I die, because he made the world safer for my children. But in our wildest dreams, we never could have imagined getting the world to go along with us, and this president has done it. And he did it in 26 days, from the day of the attack until the day we started shooting back.
But Bush did that after Sept. 11. And long before that, he had evidence that al-Qaida was behind the USS Cole attack. Now, the Post story notes that Bush warned the Taliban we would attack if they continued to harbor al-Qaida -- and then he didn't do it either, until after Sept. 11. Don't you think if Sept. 11 had happened a year earlier, Clinton would have been able to marshal a similar coalition against al-Qaida?
Why didn't Clinton act after the USS Cole?
For one thing, it happened on Oct. 12, less than a month before the election. Yes, people believed right away it was bin Laden and al-Qaida, but there wasn't proof. But the National Security Council presented its final conclusions about the Cole attack -- that it was of course al-Qaida -- to Dick Cheney Feb. 9, according to the Post report. Why didn't the Bush White House attack soon after that? They warned the Taliban, but they didn't do anything. They were doing less than the Clinton administration.
That information about the USS Cole was developed within days of the bombing. Now, there's a new administration in town for a few weeks, and they get an intelligence briefing that says "Here's the" -- not "the new" -- "here's the evidence Osama bin Laden was behind this." Well, great! But what the hell was the previous administration doing about it? Nothing.
I don't think it's true they were doing nothing, but certainly they didn't attack. We also didn't hear on Oct. 13 or 14 candidate Bush say, "I'm going to invade Afghanistan if they don't punish al-Qaida!" We didn't hear it from Al Gore either. You should be the one arguing -- you're the hawk -- that neither party took this threat seriously enough.
I just don't believe the evidence about al-Qaida's responsibility for the Cole was presented to the candidates, either candidate, in the depth it was presented in that NSC meeting in February.
So why didn't the Bush administration act immediately after that February NSC meeting?
Very simple: What was it that galvanized the world?
Sept. 11. But Bill Clinton didn't have a Sept. 11. George Bush had that, tragically.
You're missing the point. Look, I just got back from over there. There are seven countries out there acting every day to help America prosecute that war. Not one of them wants to be listed as an American ally. Why is that? I visited a base where we have thousands of military personnel operating to support the operation in "a neighboring country." That's how I was told I had to describe it. I couldn't use the name of the country. Why? They're scared to death that we're going to pull out again because that's what they experienced under Bill Clinton. They're afraid the U.S. isn't in it for the long haul. We never should have abandoned the region after the Gulf War.
That wasn't Clinton.
We never should have allowed the Taliban to take charge after 1995. And after the USS Cole -- even after two American embassies were bombed -- why in God's name, with 2,000-plus people dead or wounded, why didn't the Clinton administration galvanize the world then? It was a missed opportunity for a guy who couldn't keep his pants up. Yes, I'm visceral when it comes to Bill Clinton.