Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Dec. 17, 2001 / 2 Teves, 5762

Diana West

Diana West
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Hillary strikes out -- IT wasn't just that NBC's Tim Russert was throwing softballs last Sunday to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, on "Meet the Press." Indeed, as The New York Times noted, Russert's questions "were not all softballs." This is true. Some of his questions were big, shiny beach balls that Clinton could lob back and never see followed-up on again.

Russert began by quoting a statement by Mrs. Clinton regarding the Clinton administration's efforts against terrorism: "We did what needed to be done and could be done," Mrs. Clinton said recently, adding Clintonesquely, "but it was not near enough of what should have been done." Logically enough, Russert asked, "What more should have been done?"

Two hundred and three words later, Clinton may have stopped talking but she still hadn't answered the question. She was too busy elaborating on having done "what needed to be done and could be done" to entertain notions of "what should have been done." The bottom line: "I know that fighting terrorism and going after bin Laden was a top priority of the Clinton administration," she said.

Here was a whopper. Even the most die-hard Clintonista won't say that in the dark. As Russert did point out, USA Today, hardly a vast right-wing conspirator, recently noted the Clinton administration's reluctance to focus on the terrorist threat in an article titled "Why Clinton Failed to Stop Bin Laden," reporting: "Even Clinton's defenders acknowledge that, for much of his tenure, fighting terrorism wasn't his highest priority." Certainly, fighting terrorism wasn't the all-out war that fighting Kenneth Starr was -- or even Linda Tripp.

Which was no secret. From as far away as Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin noticed American disinterest. Bill Clinton "was in a very difficult position," he told ABC's Barbara Walters last month, alluding to the Lewinsky affair. "But even at that time, we certainly were counting on a more active cooperation in combating international terrorism." Former administration insiders say much the same thing. "Clearly, not enough was done," former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick told the Boston Globe in late September. "We should have caught this." Even former Clinton National Security Council aide Nancy Soderberg, still insisting that the Lewinsky matter never distracted her former boss, admitted, "In hindsight, it [the effort against terrorism] wasn't enough, and anyone involved in the policy would have to admit that."

Come to think of it, anyone not involved in the policy would have to admit it. Mrs. Clinton happens to fit both categories. One moment the junior senator from New York was expounding on "secret presidential directives," the next minute she was feigning ignorance of the particulars. "Well," she began (as is her custom) in response to whether recent critiques of the Clinton anti-terrorism record were fair, "I don't think it's fair. I don't think that's an accurate rendering of what did happen. But, you know, I don't know all the details." Please.

Russert passed on to one final terrorism question. After the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, he wondered, should the United States have declared war on terrorism? "A lot was done," Mrs. Clinton replied, grasping at straws -- rather, citing a trip she said her husband made to the United Nations and "several" international summits on the subject. "But, you know, if you go back and look at the context, there was not the support in this country for the steps that were needed."

Eureka. Mrs. Clinton, despite herself, finally said a mouthful. She's absolutely right that public opinion was not behind a war on terrorism in the middle to late 1990s. But that doesn't mean a war on terrorism shouldn't have been envisioned, planned and fought. But such an effort -- even on a smaller scale than the current war -- would have required the kind of leadership that molds public opinion, not follows it. Unhappily for the nation, that's not the kind of leadership we got.

JWR contributor Diana West is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.


12/13/01:Lost files, lost presidency
12/10/01: Revolutionaries never grow up
12/05/01: Immigration reform talk is not just for 'haters' anymore
12/03/01: A new symbol of justice
11/30/01: Beyond morality
11/26/01: Can't keep a good man down
11/20/01: Tough talk at the United Nations
11/19/01: Hollywood's other battle
11/14/01: What's the matter with Sara Jane?
11/09/01: A beef with bin Laden's Beef Noodles
11/07/01: Facing up to the FBI's past mistakes
11/02/01: A school that teaches patriots to shutup
10/30/01: The gap between Islam and peace
10/26/01: The ties that bind (and gag)
10/24/01: This war is more than Afghanistan
10/22/01: The fatuous fatwa
10/19/01: Left out
10/16/01: Whose definition of terrorism?
10/11/01: Post-stress disorder
10/08/01: How the West has won
10/01/01: Good, bad or ... diplomacy
09/28/01: Drawing a line in stone
09/21/01: Prejudice or prudence?
09/14/01: When our dead will finally rest in hallowed ground
09/07/01: We want our #$%^&*() audience back!
08/24/01: The transformation from Green Mountain State to Green Activist State is all but complete
08/17/01: Enlightenment at Yale
08/10/01: From oppressors to victims, a metamorphosis
08/03/01: Opening the dormitory door: College romance in the New Century
08/01/01: How-To Hackdom: The dubious art of writing books about writing books
07/20/01: Hemming about Hemmings
07/13/01: Justice has not been served in the Loiuma police brutality case
06/22/01: When PC parades are too 'mainstream'
06/22/01: When "viewpoint discrimination" in our schools was not nearly so gnarly a notion
06/15/01: Lieberman flaunts mantle of perpetual aggrievement
06/07/01: Is graciousness the culprit?
06/01/01: The bright side of the Jeffords defection
05/29/01: Campus liberals should be more careful
05/18/01: 'Honest Bill' Clinton and other Ratheresian Logic
05/11/01: Dodging balls, Bugs, and 'brilliance'
05/04/01: Foot in mouth disease and little lost Tories
04/20/01:The last classic Clinton cover-up
04/20/01: D-Day, Schmee-Day
04/06/01: For heaven's sake, a little decency!
03/30/01: The sweet sound of slamming doors and clucking feminists
03/23/01: America's magazines and the 'ick-factor'
03/09/01: Felony neglect
03/02/01: Who's sorry now?
02/23/01: 'Ecumenical niceness' and other latter-day American gifts to the world
02/16/01: Elton and Eminem: Royal dirge-icist meets violent fantasist
02/12/01: If only ...

© 2001, Diana West