Wag The Dog And The 9/11 Commission
By Randall Nunn (08/01/04)
The press reported that the September 11 Commission’s final report said there was “no evidence suggesting” President Clinton ordered airstrikes on Osama bin Laden targets to distract attention from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. What the 9/11 Commissioners actually stated was that they heard testimony from Clinton aides that their advice to Clinton about the airstrikes was based solely on national security considerations and that the Commissioners “found no reason to question their statements.” The press elevates “no reason to question” statements of interested parties (i.e., Clinton aides) to “no evidence suggesting” Clinton may have acted hastily in large part because of an improper motive. That is sort of like saying that although Robinson Crusoe saw footprints in the sand, there was no evidence suggesting another human being was actually on the island.
There was, of course, considerable evidence suggesting that the airstrikes may have been ordered, in part, to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky affair. First, the timing of the strikes. Second, the ineptness with which the strikes were carried out, not because of the technical performance but because of the haste with which they were planned and executed. Third, the marked contrast with Clinton inaction against other terrorist strikes in other instances. Fourth, the refusal of the Clinton administration to accept the delivery of Osama bin Laden from the Sudan government as has been widely reported. Fifth, the lack of truthfulness and political maneuvering on the part of President Clinton over a long span of time when confronted with his womanizing escapades. And sixth, the natural human tendency of aides not to publicly admit that they or their boss acted improperly or even under questionable circumstances when to do so would forever tarnish their reputations, as well as that of the administration they served. Thus, there was, in fact, considerable evidence “suggesting” that the airstrikes may have been ordered, in part, to distract the public from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
The fact that President Clinton and his aides may have had some information suggesting the appropriateness of the action against the Osama bin Laden targets does not provide evidence of President Clinton’s primary motivation in ordering the strikes when he did. These particular strikes stand out when compared to the indecision and dithering with respect to other possible responses to terrorist actions. What made these strikes so urgent that they had to be carried out so quickly, when no action was launched against a sighting of bin Laden himself where he could have been struck with little danger to collateral targets?
The 9/11 Commission provided some “cover” to President Clinton when it said that the failure of the strikes, the “wag the dog” slur and the “intense partisanship of the period” had a “cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Laden.” Let’s see if I understand this reasoning. The 9/11 Commission was told by Mr. Berger that President Clinton said “they were going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing.” If this is the guiding principle, why does the “cumulative effect” of failure, “wag the dog” allegations and intense partisanship change the equation so that “do the right thing” later takes a back seat to “what will be the best thing from a public relations perspective?” Isn’t there at least a “suggestion” here that President Clinton may have been motivated, in part, by the political benefit to be gained by timing the airstrikes when he did? Admittedly this is not the kind of suggestion that anyone feels good about, but it reflects the evaluation of many Americans at the time. The 9/11 Commission dismissed this suggestion much too quickly in their attempt to appear “bipartisan”. If juries can convict a defendant of murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence, can’t a suggestion of improper motive be recorded for history’s sake where there is much circumstantial evidence of political considerations having played a role in these airstrikes? And no one knows yet if any such evidence may have been in former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger’s pants and socks as he left the National Archives. The 9/11 Commission may have found no reason to doubt the motivation of President Clinton and his advisers, but there are plenty of rational and objective Americans who have.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Randall Nunn
