Wesley Clark is blasting the Bush Administration’s for its "responsibility for 9-11.
Excuse me, Mr. Clark, but under what administration was our HUMINT gathering capability systematically weakened? (Hint, not this one?)
Which administration had the opportunity to capture Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1996 but did not do so because they feared the international backlash?
Which administration displayed a wanton attitude towards the military?
The fact is that the Clinton Administration allowed a series of attacks, from the first World Trade Center attack, to the bombings of our Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies, to the Khobar Towers bombing, to the USS Cole and nothing was done to effectively limit al-Qaeda’s funding or reach. In the eight years that Clinton was in office several Muslim charities were shown to have connections with terrorism – but AG Janet Reno wouldn’t touch it to avoid “offending the Muslim community.” The Clinton Administration could have stopped al-Qaeda in their tracks had they the political will to do so – but they did not. As both Lt. Col. Robert Patterson (USAF-Ret.) and National Review‘s Rich Lowry have document at great length, the Clinton Administration’s unwillingness to pursue al-Qaeda allowed them to engage in an series of escalating terror attacks culminating in the September 11 atrocity.
Of course, Clark doesn’t care about the facts, he’s only seeking political advantage by slandering the Bush Administration. However, that line of argumentation is foolish for the Democrats considering that their weakness on national security is their Achilles Heel. If I were them I wouldn’t be emphasizing that weakness at every available opportunity.