Much mud is being thrown back in forth in Washington between the former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke and the Bush administration over where blame should lie for the failure to pre-empt 9/11. Not an edifying spectacle. Clarke seems to be grandstanding for the anti-war lobby by claiming that the Bushies were so obsessed by Iraq they didn't prioritise al Qaeda. The Bushies have hit back by leaking an off-the-record briefing in which Clarke said five months before he resigned that 'the administration had decided soon after taking office to "vigorously pursue" existing policy against al-Qa'eda', and have accused him of being a bad loser and politically partisan.

But surely the inescapable fact is that both the Bush administration pre 9/11 and the Clinton administration knew about the threat but failed to act effectively. That was why 9/11 changed everything, because it was only then that America realised its entire approach towards rogue states for the previous decade and before had been wrong. Clinton had acted in a half-hearted manner against Iraq and al Qaeda; homeland security had been risible; and Bush hadn't been paying enough attention. As the Telegraph reports:

'The conclusion in the American media appeared to be yesterday that both administrations were at fault. Both were guilty of a lack of urgency in confronting the threat - that Mr Clinton's policies were ineffectual, and that Mr Bush's eye was "off the ball".'

But in any event, as Donald Rumsfeld observed, if Bush had decided to act against al Qaeda before 9/11 does anyone doubt what would have happened?

'"Imagine we were back before September 11 and that a US president had looked at the information then available, gone before the Congress and the world and said 'We need to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and destroy the al-Qa'eda terrorist network'," he said. "Based on what little was known before September 11. How many countries would have joined? Many? Any? Not likely." '

Indeed, hasn't the anti-war lobby been convulsed over the illegitimacy (sic) of the very kind of pre-emptive strike it is now blaming Bush for not having made? Is there no end to the contortions of thinking among those who are single-mindedly attempting to bring him down?

Posted by melanie at March 25, 2004