The Israel Angle In the Clinton Meltdown
Did you catch it? TigerHawk did:
In October 2000, Clinton was no longer constrained by political considerations. The impeachment was behind him, and he had the operational freedom of a true lame duck. Nobody could accuse him of wagging the dog in October 2000. Bill Clinton affirmatively decided against retaliating for the Cole bombing because he thought it would get in the way of peace with the Palestinian Arabs. Now this may or may not have been a good choice when made - history has revealed that it was disastrous for Israel, the Palestinians, and possibly almost 3000 Americans - but it was a choice nonetheless. Like the decision to avoid a prolonged campaign against al Qaeda after the embassy bombings (because Iraq was a higher priority), Clinton made a choice. I don't blame him for the fact that history strongly suggests both decisions were grievously wrong - I believe that "all hands went to midnight" on September 11, and that everybody was caught by surprise - but that doesn't make it any less Clinton's decision.
We, of course, do blame him for making that decision. Anyone not encumbered by the myopia of State Department sophistication or blinded by the prospect of a Noble Peace Prize knew that Arafat's decade-long cheating meant that he was never going to make peace. It's not that he wasn't strong enough - he had a decade's worth of US-funded guns and troops allowing him to do whatever he wanted on the Palestinian street. He turned those guns and troops against Israel not because he had to, but because he wanted to - and anyone honest enough to examine his behavior knew that that's what would happen.
In October 2000, Clinton was no longer constrained by political considerations. The impeachment was behind him, and he had the operational freedom of a true lame duck. Nobody could accuse him of wagging the dog in October 2000. Bill Clinton affirmatively decided against retaliating for the Cole bombing because he thought it would get in the way of peace with the Palestinian Arabs. Now this may or may not have been a good choice when made - history has revealed that it was disastrous for Israel, the Palestinians, and possibly almost 3000 Americans - but it was a choice nonetheless. Like the decision to avoid a prolonged campaign against al Qaeda after the embassy bombings (because Iraq was a higher priority), Clinton made a choice. I don't blame him for the fact that history strongly suggests both decisions were grievously wrong - I believe that "all hands went to midnight" on September 11, and that everybody was caught by surprise - but that doesn't make it any less Clinton's decision.
We, of course, do blame him for making that decision. Anyone not encumbered by the myopia of State Department sophistication or blinded by the prospect of a Noble Peace Prize knew that Arafat's decade-long cheating meant that he was never going to make peace. It's not that he wasn't strong enough - he had a decade's worth of US-funded guns and troops allowing him to do whatever he wanted on the Palestinian street. He turned those guns and troops against Israel not because he had to, but because he wanted to - and anyone honest enough to examine his behavior knew that that's what would happen.
