Interview with Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton appeared on Fox News on Sunday to talk about his post presidency initiatives and as many have seen, got into a bit of skirmish with Chris Wallace. Questions arose about whether Clinton did enough to destroy Bin Ladin and his terrorist outfit.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?
CLINTON: No, because I didn’t
get him
WALLACE: Right…
CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the
difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me
now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they
didn’t….. I tired. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive
anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did
FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me.
But what I want to know..

If Clinton didn't want to appear on a conservative station, he should have turned down the interview in the first place. Or maybe he felt obligated to show up on Fox after Rupert Murdoch raised all that money for his wife .

There were a few things in the overall exchange that were interesting, as brought up by Patterico explaining how Clinton was wrong (or in Al Franken's words, lying) when he stated Richard Clark was fired(he requested transfer) , and that Chris Wallace never asked those in the Bush administration about pre-9/11 terrorist actions.

But back to the substance of Clinton's statement. I agree with the part where he states he tried. I have no doubt that his administration wanted Bin Ladin and the terrorists dead. He wasn't following this touchy feely, "we just need to understand the terrorists" bullshit or that we need to blame the jews and pull out of Israel crap that you hear from the far left and Pat Buchananites on the right. It is difficult to fault him or Bush for not being able to find Bin Ladin. Our government had a hell of a time finding the Olympic Park Bomber and we pretty much knew what state he was hiding in, so plucking out a guy surrounded by allies in the mountains half a world away isn't as easy as many suggest.

Then he goes too far when he states: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some.
The way I read that, he is laying blame at Bush for not trying enough when Bush first took office. The left wing talking point is that Clinton had this great plan to destroy Al Qaeda and Bush tossed it in the circular file.

From Al Franken's book, Lies and Lying Liars:

Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was
completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had
been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, we would be
handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton
and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry
out.

While all the Bushies focused on their pet projects, Clarke was blowing a
gasket. He had a plan, and no one was paying attention. It didn't help that the
plan had been hatched under Clinton. Clinton-hating was to the Bush White House
what terrorism- fighting was to the Clinton White House.

Yet in a briefing with reporters, Clarke painted a very different picture of how things ran under Bush in those opening months. First point on the plan that Franken mentioned:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go
through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there
was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the
Bush administration.

So there was no plan passed to Bush from Clinton according to the liberals' go to guy on all things relating to terrorism. A guy the was referenced favorably by Franken in his book. This is only Clarke's first point, it gets more substantive in his next few:

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place,
effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table
since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of
office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan,
changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And
in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing
strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been
decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush
administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things.
One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert
action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point
is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal
findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do
is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for
a couple of years and get them decided.

So according to Clarke, Bush continued existing terrorism policies that had been started under Clinton, and in fact, the administration pushed for action on items that had been on the table and not acted upon during the Clinton years. So while Franken said we ignored the threat, one of his main men makes a different case. In his final point, Clarke continues to explain Bush administration policy relating to terrorism.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they
developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer,
approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the
increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the
policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance
assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda
over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called
for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

It is clear that there were people on the case who were continuing the fight on terror, reviewing suggestions and eventually implementing them, including items that were not acted upon for over two years during the Clinton administration.

Now for the most damning part of the exchange, for those who claim the new adminstration didn't want anything to do with terrorism and that it was brushed aside because it was a Clinton thing

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002]
Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on
board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus
against the — general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I
think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not
have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where
the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and
kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus
against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush
administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing
while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased
money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's
correct.

It is important to remember the source of this. Richard Clarke is the guy Franken, Bill Clinton, and Michael Moore have all referenced. And here he is refuting Franken and Clinton's point that the Bush administration did not follow through on terrorism. It is easy for critics of Clinton and Bush to pick apart what could have or should have happened. But killing terrorists and keeping our country safe isn't as easy as it is portrayed on TV.


Further material on this can be found here:


Patterico
Frankenlies.com
Franken's chapter Operation Ignore