In the intermediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the country rallied together realizing that fighting amongst ourselves would be counterproductive. Even before any investigations to determine the history of what had happened in the lead up to the attacks, it could have easily been foreseen that in the perspective of hindsight there would have been many opportunities to have thwarted the attacks. President George W. Bushs Administration had eight short months to anticipate an attack. The Administration of President Bill Clinton had eight years. There must have been many mistakes made by both administrations.
It is likely that given a pre-9/11 perspective, if the administrations of Clinton and Bush had been reversed in sequence, 9/11 would not have been averted. The Clinton Administration considered the threat of terrorism a criminal enforcement problem, not an international conflict. It is not clear that Bush would have thought differently before 9/11.
Up until now, in the interest of comity, neither president had dissipated national unity by focusing on a blame game. President Clinton broke this tacit arrangement this Sunday in an angry interview on Fox News Sunday. They had eight months to try [to get Bin Laden]. They did not try. I tried, he boasted.
A dispassionate examination of the 9/11-Commission Report or Richard Clarkes book cited by Clinton in the interview does not support the picture painted by Clinton of a directed president doing everything in his power to get Bin Laden.
It is unclear if Bill Clinton was posing faux anger in the interview to energize Democrats in anticipation of the mid-term election. William Kristol of the Weekly Standard lays out a possible Clinton strategy for such an outburst. Chris Wallace, who conducted the interview, reports that Clinton walked away angry and chewed out subordinates suggestive of authentic anger. Perhaps, Clinton was still smarting from the docu-drama The Path to 9/11 that painted the Clinton Administration in a negative light.
As usual Clinton played a little fast and loose with the truth, but not any more than we have come to expect from Clinton spin. There was no comprehensive anti-terror strategy bequeathed to the Bush Administration as he asserted. Richard Clarke, Clinton’s source of all wisdom, claimed that, There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration…[a] plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new. In fact in 2001, Clarke said, the Bush Administration changed the [Clinton] strategy from one of rollback [of] al Qaeda over five years to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
Clinton may get angry from many causes, but it is true that when he is caught red-handed, a la the Monica Lewinsky affair, he has a tendency to get livid and self righteous. Perhaps it is my Conservative ear but I heard a little of the finger-wagging I never sex with that woman as he leaned over and harangued at Wallace, What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him [Osama bin Laden]
It is common to be most stung by criticism when it hits close to home. Perhaps Clinton feels a little guilty that not enough was done to pursue Osama Bin Laden during his administration. The case can be made that it would have been difficult for anyone to do more, though there is always room for critical self-examination. However, in his congenitally narcissistic manner Clinton believes this is a question about him and his legacy. It is more important for the country to eschew self-blame and focus moral liability on terrorists, but Clinton insists on polishing his own reputation. It is ironic that Clintons outburst in desperate service of his legacy will continue to cement the vision of Clinton as an unserious person.
Religious Bullies
Sunday, September 24th, 2006It is no coincidence that Rosie ODonnell is not afraid to conflate radical Christians with Islamic terrorists on television. It is no accident that that Madonna is willing to mount a crucifix to entertain us. The calculation of consequences is not difficult. Some Christians will be offended, but all they will do is complain. Other people will praise ODonnells and Madonnas faux courage, while the controversy will increase their marketability.
Pope Benedict XVI learned that the calculation changes when one even indirectly criticizes Islam. On September 12, he delivered a papal address at the University of Regensburg on the relationship between faith and reason. The essence of the talk was the observation that Christianity and the Greek tradition of logic had reached a synthesis. Faith and reason are not exclusive, but complimentary.
One consequence of this accommodation is the recognition — not always, but generally, respected by Christians — that faith can only be spread by moral witness and persuasion built on reason. Pope Benedict argued that reason and openness are the only foundation upon which there can be honest dialogue between faiths.
In passing, the Pope cited a fourteenth century Byzantine Emperor who said, Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find thing only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. The Pope did not argue that this was the essence of Islam or that it was his view of Islam. Indeed, he cited the part of the Koran, (Surah 2) There is no compulsion in religion.
Even if upset about the negative portrayal of Islam by someone dead over six-hundred years, Muslims faithful to a more modern interpretation of Islam, one that had reached an understanding between faith and religion, would have understood the intellectual and exploratory nature of the Popes remarks. Even after the Pope expressed regret about the misinterpretation of his remarks, a large number of Muslims appeared eager to remain offended and threaten the Pope. There is more than a little irony in the observation that when Islam is indirectly criticized for unreasonably resorting to violence, some Islamist threatened the Pope, burn churches, and slay a nun.
As Charles Krauthammer argued, the inconvenient truth is that after centuries of religious wars, Christendom long ago gave it up. It is a simple and undeniable fact that the violent purveyors of monotheistic religion today are self-proclaimed warriors for Islam who shout God is great as they slit the throats of infidels — such as those of the flight crews on Sept. 11, 2001 — and are then celebrated as heroes and martyrs.
There is an important if not quantifiable portion of modern Islam, maybe just the loudest and most conspicuous, which is not only intolerant, but does not even have a fully developed theology or understanding of religious toleration. What remains is the theology of the religious bully. The distinction between that part of Islam that has embraced religious tolerance and that part that has not is relatively easy to recognize. The element that embraces tolerance does not react violently when criticized and refrains from suggesting that Christians are swine and Jews are apes.
Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »