Politics: J'accuse!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...1654-1495r.htm

[quoting Washington Times story on Clinton national security paper]

This story sounds pretty bogus to me, based on what Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum say about the underlying report.

Drum:

[F]ar from considering terrorism a mere law enforcement activity, terrorism gets an entire paragraph in the section titled "Military Activities":

• We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.

They're right -- that paragraph doesn't mention OBL or Al Qaeda. I guess that casts doubt on Clarke's entire account.

Yglesias

A fair criticism to make of this document would be that it has a very Clinton-ish laundry-list quality to it that stands in sharp contrast to Bush's focus -- both at home and abroad -- on a handful of key priorities. That, indeed, was the main criticism one heard from Condoleezza Rice and other Clinton critics from the right during the 2000 campaign. He was too unfocused. The critics were probably right about this. Unfortunately, and as we've seen several times before, when Rice had the chance to draw up her short list of priorities, she left multinational terrorism off it altogether.

That means terrorism got less attention than it did under Clinton -- a mistake, not only in retrospect, but one that many people saw was mistaken at the time. This is not to say that the Clinton administration was as focused on the issue as, in retrospect, it's clear they should have been. But this, in turn, doesn't mean that Bush didn't take a bad situation and make it even worse.