The Corner

Clinton Vs. Bush in The War On Terror

The most damning charge Richard Clarke makes is that the Bush administration has waged a less effective war on terror than the Clinton administration. When I say “damning,” I mean damning to the credibility of Mr. Clarke.

A cursory internet search reveals story after story (including an author interview by KJL)

in which Clarke makes it clear that the Clinton administration had the opportunity to take out Osama, had the understanding of how dangerous he was, and still chose not to act.

Then again, it’s hard to overlook Clarke’s own culpability: the first World Trade Center attack, the attacks on two US embassies in Africa, the Kobar towers, the USS Cole–all of these were conducted by the same enemy on Richard Clarke’s watch. And the September 11 attacks were plotted and funded then, too.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s “botched” anti-terror policy since 9/11 has coincided with more than two years in which there hasn’t been a single, successful terror attack on American soil.

The Clinton/Clarke strategy gave us a steady stream of terror attacks against Americans, leading up to September 11. The Bush/Condi strategy has given us a nation thus far free of terror, plus the toppling of two pro-terror governments and a sudden surge in good behavior from Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and others.

Clarke finds it “unbelievable” the President Bush is running on his record against terrorism. I find it “unbelievable” that Clarke is criticizing anyone else.

Michael GrahamMichael Graham was born in Los Angeles and raised in South Carolina. A graduate of Oral Roberts University, he worked as a stand-up comedian before beginning his political career as ...

Recommended

The Latest