Bin Laden Determined to Strike Already Struck in US

by Eric Martin

Matt Yglesias points to a 1998 interview with John McCain in which the Senator appears to downplay the danger posed by Osama bin Laden.  Said McCain, "Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that’s depicted?  Most of us have never heard of him before."  Not that I blame McCain much for his nonchalance. As Matt quite correctly notes, many people, Democrat and Republican alike (the Clinton administration included), failed to truly appreciate the scope of the al-Qaeda threat prior to 9/11.

But that's the thing.  On 9/11, al-Qaeda's destructive capacity was made visceral in what was a deeply traumatic episode.  Yet, a mere month later John McCain was busy trying to convince people to invade...Iraq.  A country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and no connection to al-Qaeda.  An undertaking that would divert valuable and limited assets from the actual pursuit of al-Qaeda - the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the guy that no American could rightly doubt was every bit as bad as depicted.

Here's some video of McCain's post-9/11 non-wake up call (via Juan Cole).  Barack Obama should make a bigger point of the "morning after" nature of McCain's Iraq war cheerleading.  It wasn't just that McCain advocated shifting away from the hunt for al-Qaeda in the fall of 2002 or winter of 2003 when the Iraq invasion was n the final preparation stages.  McCain started beating that drum while ground zero embers were still smoldering. 

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"As Matt quite correctly notes, many people, Democrat and Republican alike (the Clinton administration included), failed to truly appreciate the scope of the al-Qaeda threat prior to 9/11."

The Clinton Administration made bin Laden a fairly high priority; they told Bush and his people that it was the highest priority threat; they went to the trouble of launching a major attack on Sudan and Afghanistan.

August 21, 1998:

U.S. Sees Bin Laden as Ringleader of Terrorist Network

WASHINGTON -- Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad Bin Laden is the self-appointed president of a University of Holy War in Afghanistan, U.S. officials say.

From his Afghan redoubt, he has declared war against U.S. interests everywhere, fueled by rage against U.S. power in the Middle East, and backed, the officials say, by an international network of terrorists and companies.

Clinton addressed the nation on the threat from bin Laden. Etc.

Of course, the al Shifa plant most likely didn't deserve to get blown up. But it was hardly a display of not appreciating the threat.

[cleek]

i can't help but think: if that was an Obama quote, we'd hear about nothing else for the next 4 weeks.

[Eric Martin]

Yeah but Gary, there were opportunities to authorize other air strikes that had a good chance of killing him and the Clinton team backed off. In retrospect, they shouldn't have.

[Gary Farber]

More.

[...] "President Clinton was deeply concerned about [Osama] Bin Ladin," remarks the opening section of Chapter 6, titled "From Threat to Threat." It goes on to note that by the summer of 1998, Clinton and his national security advisor Sandy Berger "ensured that they had a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on Bin Ladin's reported location."

[...]

Again and again, the report takes careful note of Clinton's active, personal participation in the effort against al-Qaida during the Millennium alert, exploding myths about his supposed distraction by domestic scandals. Clarke spoke directly with the president on several occasions that month. "In mid-December," the report reveals, "President Clinton signed a Memorandum of Notification (MON) giving the CIA broader authority to use foreign proxies to detain Bin Ladin lieutenants, without having to transfer them to U.S. custody. The authority was to capture, not kill, although lethal force might be used if necessary."

The commission confirms Clinton's widely reported "obsession" with al-Qaida, describing in detail his efforts to raise international awareness, increase spending on counterterrorism and homeland security long before that phrase became fashionable, and to demand action by the nation's covert forces. Indeed, their report credits Clinton with ignoring a serious threat to his own safety to seek foreign assistance in the struggle against bin Laden.

Clinton:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced.

Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel on Wednesday, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his "exit interview," a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence," Clinton said. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

[Gary Farber]

The "Clinton team," Eric? 2001:

[...] President Clinton also ordered a more aggressive program of covert action, signing an intelligence order that allowed him to use lethal force against Mr. bin Laden. Later, this was expanded to include as many as a dozen of his top lieutenants, officials said.

On at least four occasions, Mr. Clinton sent the C.I.A. a secret "memorandum of notification," authorizing the government to kill or capture Mr. bin Laden and, later, other senior operatives. The C.I.A. then briefed members of Congress about those plans.

The C.I.A. redoubled its efforts to track Mr. bin Laden's movements, stationing submarines in the Indian Ocean to await the president's launch order. To hit Mr. bin Laden, the military said it needed to know where he would be 6 to 10 hours later — enough time to review the decision in Washington and program the cruise missiles.

That search proved frustrating. Officials said the C.I.A. did have some spies within Afghanistan. On at least three occasions between 1998 and 2000, the C.I.A. told the White House it had learned where Mr. bin Laden was and where he might soon be.

Each time, Mr. Clinton approved the strike. Each time, George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, called the president to say that the information was not reliable enough to be used in an attack, a former senior Clinton administration official said.

[...]

Officials said the White House pushed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop plans for a commando raid to capture or kill Mr. bin Laden. But the chairman, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, and other senior Pentagon officers told Mr. Clinton's top national security aides that they would need to know Mr. bin Laden's whereabouts 12 to 24 hours in advance.

Pentagon planners also considered a White House request to send a hunter team of commandos, small enough to avoid detection, the officer said. General Shelton discounted this option as naïve, the officer said.

White House officials were frustrated that the Pentagon could not produce plans that involved a modest number of troops. Military planners insisted that an attack on Al Qaeda required thousands of troops invading Afghanistan. "When you said this is what it would take, no one was interested," a senior officer said.

The will seems to have been there at the top, but it seems to have been stymied by CIA and the Pentagon.

To be sure, there's a CIA defensive view, as well. But by both accounts, it wasn't a matter of a unified "Clinton team" coming up with a single, wimpy, policy.

[Carleton Wu]

Barack Obama should make a bigger point of the "morning after" nature of McCain's Iraq war cheerleading.

Im not sure I agree, tactically. It risks spreading the message too thin rather than continuing to gain traction with economic issues.

If Obama's going to cut a national security spot, Id rather see him talking about his record going back several years saying we needed more in Afghanistan, while McCain and Bush thought we could get by with what we had- until their recent conversion to his position.

[russell]

there were opportunities to authorize other air strikes that had a good chance of killing him and the Clinton team backed off.

Yes, but the question at hand is not Clinton's response. It is McCain's assessment of the threat presented by Bin Laden.

The MJ article is from the November/December issue. On August 7, 1998, two US embassies were bombed nearly simultaneously, killing over 200 people, including 12 Americans.

I could be remembering this all incorrectly, but I don't think there was any question about Bin Laden's involvement in those bombings. If I'm not mistaken, he was placed on the FBI's 10 most wanted list.

What, precisely, would McCain have needed to consider Bin Laden "really a bad guy"?

Thanks -

[Tony P.]

Of course Obama should emphasize that McCain was champing at the bit for an Iraq war days after 9/11. (Do mavericks champ at bits? Maybe I need a different metaphor.) But I wish Obama could find a way to raise the really big question:

Why did people like Cheney and McCain clamor for war against Saddam? I reject the possibility that they sincerely believed it was necessary to prevent actual bodily harm to ordinary people in Peoria. But they must have had, inside their own heads, a "good" reason. What could it have been?

Everybody has a subjectively "good" reason for his actions. Nobody thinks to himself, "This action will be bad for random people, bad for my friends, and bad for me, but I still think it's a good thing to do." In your own mind there has to be a benefit to somebody -- to yourself if to no one else -- from any action you advocate. If the benefit you foresee is confined to yourself and a few close friends, you will of course dissemble about your own true motives. You will invoke smoking guns and mushroom clouds, for instance. But that's just for public consumption. It's not your own, internal, subjective "good reason".

Perhaps nothing short of enhanced interrogation could force McCain to admit, even to himself, what his own motives have been. But public questioning of them would be a good start.

--TP

[Eric Martin]

Yes, but the question at hand is not Clinton's response. It is McCain's assessment of the threat presented by Bin Laden.

True indeed. We're discussing a tangential matter.

But by both accounts, it wasn't a matter of a unified "Clinton team" coming up with a single, wimpy, policy.

I never said wimpy. There were legitimate concerns. Still, Clinton could have leaned more on Tenet, taken the initiative himself and/or could have used the military outside of the CIA loop.

Getting back to the wimpy comment: I did not say that Clinton completely ignored bin Laden. All of the material you cited is good evidence that he did take the threat seriously. Further, the Bush team did not. There is definitely a contrast in the two approaches.

Nevertheless, knowing now what bin Laden was planning for 9/11, I think there were steps Clinton could have taken that he didn't.

In fact, I would think Clinton probably agrees with that.

[Michael Drake]

"there were opportunities to authorize other air strikes that had a good chance of killing him and the Clinton team backed off. In retrospect, they shouldn't have."

Even if true, it's still markedly different from rhetorically suggesting that this Obama fellow isn't "really the bad guy that’s depicted." Right?

[cleek]

Even if true, it's still markedly different from rhetorically suggesting that this Obama fellow isn't "really the bad guy that’s depicted." Right?

Obama seems like a perfectly nice guy.

[Eric Martin]

Even if true, it's still markedly different from rhetorically suggesting that this Obama fellow isn't "really the bad guy that’s depicted." Right?

Right. I'm not saying that everyone had the same level of nonchalance. I didn't say that. Just that lots of people on both sides of the aisle didn't really appreciate the full paramters of the risk. Within that failure to grasp the threat, there were varying degrees.

Clinton was really pretty good, McCain and Bush, not so much.

[Uncle Kvetch]

What, precisely, would McCain have needed to consider Bin Laden "really a bad guy"?

Having Bill Clinton say "He's really not a bad guy" probably would have sufficed.

[Gary Farber]

"Nevertheless, knowing now what bin Laden was planning for 9/11, I think there were steps Clinton could have taken that he didn't."

Who would disagree?

I was arguing with your "Democrat and Republican alike" phrasing: they weren't, in fact, alike.

"Within that failure to grasp the threat, there were varying degrees."

I'm not sure "failure to grasp the threat" is fair to Clinton, but of course there's always more that could have been done, in theory. Of course, Clinton would also have had to withstood the public uproar, and Republican attacks, if he'd dropped the 101st Airborne into Afghanistan, or whathaveyou.

[rea]

The classic Obama/Osama confusion shows up in the thread . . .

[hairshirthedonist]

What confusion? He just spells his name a little differently at times. (I still can't believe I'm going to vote for the guy behind the 9/11 attacks. ...kooky)

[Porcupine_Pal]

Bush, and the people who pull his strings; and Mc Cain and the people who pull his strings, have been so thoroughly discredited that it seems quaint even to be considering these issues yet again. They were inportant when their validity was still an open issue. But no more.

Obama's presidency begins on January 20th. How much of the harm is able to, and willing to, unwind should be the dominant theme prospectively. BUt the rest of it, all of the rest of it, is now only a matter of archeology.

[Doctor Science]

Tony P. asked:
Why did people like Cheney and McCain clamor for war against Saddam? I reject the possibility that they sincerely believed it was necessary to prevent actual bodily harm to ordinary people in Peoria. But they must have had, inside their own heads, a "good" reason. What could it have been?

In Cheney's case, I'm pretty sure that a large part of his thinking went, "US security and the American way of life* depend upon reliable access to more oil than we've got. Saddam is between us and crucial oil reserves, so he *has* to go."

*I can't find a direct source for Cheney saying "the American life style is not negotiable", though there are many references to it.

As for McCain, I know of no evidence that he is a clear or objective thinker about military issues, and he likes to smash stuff when he's angry.

[russell]

I can't find a direct source for Cheney saying "the American life style is not negotiable", though there are many references to it.

That was Poppy Bush at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992.

Thanks -

[Tony P.]

In Cheney's case, I'm pretty sure that a large part of his thinking went, "US security and the American way of life* depend upon reliable access to more oil than we've got.

The American way of life includes divorce, pornography, gay pride parades, booze, and gambling, not to mention gluttony and sloth. I doubt Cheney approves of all those things any more than Saddam, let alone bin Laden, ever did. So I can't take "protecting the American way of life" seriously as anybody's internal motivation. Even a narrower, more ... wholesome, definition of "the American way of life" seems implausible as a cause that Cheney particularly cares about. He has certainly made clear that he is indifferent to the approval of most of the actual Americans who lead "the American way of life" however defined.

McCain certainly seeks the votes of Americans in this campaign. Their good opinion of him, maybe not so much. When your campaign is based on demonstrated lies, when you're trying to win by fooling people rather than persuading them, surely your motivation is not a secret vision inside your own head of all those people clapping you on the back. It's the approval of a narrower circle you seek. The question is, how narrow a circle?

--TP

[John in Nashville]

Franklin Roosevelt said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

The twenty-first century Republican Party says that the only thing we have to offer is fear itself. Scaring people sh!tless is the surest way to motivate them to vote Republican.

Fear of real or imagined enemies. Fear of weapons of mass destruction. Fear of terrorism attacks. Fear of Islam. Fear of the Antichrist. Fear of buttsex. Fear of gun grabbing.

Of course, the greratest fear of Republicans is the fear of losing power. Osama bin Laden is worth far more to the Republican Party while he is alive and threatening American voters than while he is dead or neutralized.

[idlemind]

When the specter of terrorist threat is raised later this month (and you just know the Republicans have such an "October Surprise" ready for us) it would be a good time for the Obama campaign to raise the issue of McCain's nonchalance toward bin Laden and diversion of anti-terror resources into Iraq. But it's a diversion right now...

[KCinDC]

Idlemind, it might be more effective for Democrats to talk about Republican failures in fighting terrorism before the (threatened or actual) terrorist attacks occur rather than trying to get that message out after the fact in a media environment in which people won't be listening anyway.

[byrningman]

I don't think it would be at all productive electorally for Obama to bring this up, although I obviously agree 100% that the record unambiguously shows McCain being one of the chief misinformed and/or dishonest post-9/11 Iraq warmongers.

The sad truth is, the general public likes hawkiness, and if you are going to make a mistake killing distant people, it's never damaging electorally to err on the side of killing Muslims and/or dark-skinned people.

The fact is that it's ok to be unapologetically bigoted towards Muslims or those people commonly mistaken for Muslims (Sikhs, non-Muslim Arabs etc.) in America today, there's literally examples on a daily basis of open bigotry where if you replaced 'Muslim' for 'black' or 'female', you'd have a freakin' riot.

[russell]

The sad truth is, the general public likes hawkiness

Great.

Then the logical question for McCain is, "What the hell were you thinking in the fall of 1998?".

Thanks -

[croatoan]

Clinton was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. When he attacked al Qaeda, he was criticized for "wagging the dog" to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky mess. Bush said, "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."

[mckinneytexas]

Seventy per cent of Americans and bipartisan majorities, including Kerry, Clinton and Biden, voted for war against Saddam on the belief--widely held by Democrats and Republicans alike--that Saddam had WMD and, if was not disarmed, he or his successors,i.e. his psychotic sons, would use them or give them to someone who would use them. In retrospect, the basic premise was completely wrong, but the logic was there. The same logic remains in place with Sen. Obama declaring that Iran will not become a nuclear power and that he retains the military option of seeing that that does not happen.