- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
This goes to Hillary's experience, judgment and leadership. Hillary claims that she should be President because of her "experience" including her 8 years in the White House where she claims was more "co-President" than First Lady.
Let me say up front that I am in no way blaming the Clinton administration for 9/11 - we all know there is plenty of blame to go around. The news in August 1998 was all-Monica, all the time. But something else much more important and more tragic happened that summer - our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al Qaeda. That August Bill Clinton ordered air strikes on a target in Afghanistan (intelligence indicated that Osama bin Laden was there) and a factory in the Sudan (intelligence indiated that the factory was a biological weapons lab). The strike in Afghanistan failed. The strike in the Sudan was successful in that it severely damaged the facility but I can't remember if the biological weapons intelligence was confirmed. [All this can be googled.] Well, the Clinton haters began screaming that he was "wagging the dog" and that the whole thing was calculated to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In the face of all that screaming what did Clinton do - he backed down. He did not pursue al Qaeda any further. Clinton valued his political hide far more than he did protecting the U.S. and the world (cf. Rwanda and Somalia). This is cowardly. And if, as her claims to the co-Presidency might lead one to believe, Hillary was involved in the decision to back off from any further action against al Qaeda, well, paint her with the same brush. I know that I said I did not blame the Clinton administration but one can't help but wonder about what might have been if... .
