War goes on, but truth wins a battle

The most important Sept. 11 news story of the week did notinvolve Bill Clinton.

That may surprise some folks. As everyone south of the ArcticCircle knows by now, the former president tore into Fox Newscorrespondent Chris Wallace after Wallace dared to ask why Clintondidn't do more to get Osama bin Laden.

Clinton shot back that he did try -- harder than the Bushadministration in the eight months before the Sept. 11 attacks -- tokill bin Laden but simply wasn't successful. He said "right-wingers" ridiculed him for the effort. He even went after Wallace,blasting him for the "little smirk" on his face and accusing him of"a . . . conservative hit job."

Clinton said the interview was a set-up, Fox's way of gettingright with conservatives riled that the network's owner, RupertMurdoch, has pledged support to Clinton's Global Initiative Forum.

I am of multiple opinions about all the above:

* One. It's a nice change to see a Democrat with a spine.

* Two. It would be even nicer to see a Democrat with a spine anda brain. Cheap shots and wild conspiracy theories should be beneaththe dignity of a former president.

* Three. One can hardly blame Clinton for being angry at theurban legend that his administration did not try to bag bin Laden.Demonstrably, it did. But its attempts were ineffectual and, somemight argue with the benefit of hindsight, overly cautious.

* Four. I don't care.

It's hard to imagine a more useless argument than the one thathas reignited this week over which president should get the blamefor Sept. 11. Here's an idea: let's blame bin Laden!

Frankly, I doubt any president could have spared us the traumabin Laden wrought simply because, on Sept. 10, we lacked the abilityto even conceive something so brazen and horrific.

I am less concerned about fixing blame for what happened fiveyears ago than in making sure something worse doesn't happen fiveweeks from now. Which is why I think the most important headline ofthe week wasn't about Clinton but the leaking of a federal reportthat says the war in Iraq has not made America safer. Rather, thereport says, it has attracted and radicalized more Muslims fasterthan anyone anticipated. Put simply, the war is creating moreterrorists than it kills.

President Bush would want you to know the report also says theonly way to reverse that trend is to defeat the terrorists in Iraq.Which may be true but hardly vindicates the president. Had he notcharged needlessly into Iraq in the first place, there would be notrend to reverse.

No, there's no getting around the fact that the NationalIntelligence Estimate, representing the consensus of the nation's16 spy agencies, flies in the face of the White House line.According to that line, we fight 'em there so we don't have tofight 'em here. Iraq is the front line in the war on terror.

Actually, Iraq is the front line in the war on truth. Now truthis fighting back with an assist from Bush's own team. As oneintelligence official told the Washington Post, the report is simply"stating the obvious."

Unfortunately, this president has a talent for ignoring theobvious, for barreling ahead under the misapprehension that stayingthe course, even when the course is wrong, equals resolve. Becauseof this, we have sustained 23,000 American casualties in a war that,according to the government's own experts, is only making thingsworse. It's a failure whose fallout we'll be dealing with for years.

And there will be no debating who gets the blame.

Miami Herald

War goes on, but truth wins a battle

The most important Sept. 11 news story of the week did notinvolve Bill Clinton.

That may surprise some folks. As everyone south of the ArcticCircle knows by now, the former president tore into Fox Newscorrespondent Chris Wallace after Wallace dared to ask why Clintondidn't do more to get Osama bin Laden.

Clinton shot back that he did try -- harder than the Bushadministration in the eight months before the Sept. 11 attacks -- tokill bin Laden but simply wasn't successful. He said "right-wingers" ridiculed him for the effort. He even went after Wallace,blasting him for the "little smirk" on his face and accusing him of"a . . . conservative hit job."

Clinton said the interview was a set-up, Fox's way of gettingright with conservatives riled that the network's owner, RupertMurdoch, has pledged support to Clinton's Global Initiative Forum.

I am of multiple opinions about all the above:

* One. It's a nice change to see a Democrat with a spine.

* Two. It would be even nicer to see a Democrat with a spine anda brain. Cheap shots and wild conspiracy theories should be beneaththe dignity of a former president.

* Three. One can hardly blame Clinton for being angry at theurban legend that his administration did not try to bag bin Laden.Demonstrably, it did. But its attempts were ineffectual and, somemight argue with the benefit of hindsight, overly cautious.

* Four. I don't care.

It's hard to imagine a more useless argument than the one thathas reignited this week over which president should get the blamefor Sept. 11. Here's an idea: let's blame bin Laden!

Frankly, I doubt any president could have spared us the traumabin Laden wrought simply because, on Sept. 10, we lacked the abilityto even conceive something so brazen and horrific.

I am less concerned about fixing blame for what happened fiveyears ago than in making sure something worse doesn't happen fiveweeks from now. Which is why I think the most important headline ofthe week wasn't about Clinton but the leaking of a federal reportthat says the war in Iraq has not made America safer. Rather, thereport says, it has attracted and radicalized more Muslims fasterthan anyone anticipated. Put simply, the war is creating moreterrorists than it kills.

President Bush would want you to know the report also says theonly way to reverse that trend is to defeat the terrorists in Iraq.Which may be true but hardly vindicates the president. Had he notcharged needlessly into Iraq in the first place, there would be notrend to reverse.

No, there's no getting around the fact that the NationalIntelligence Estimate, representing the consensus of the nation's16 spy agencies, flies in the face of the White House line.According to that line, we fight 'em there so we don't have tofight 'em here. Iraq is the front line in the war on terror.

Actually, Iraq is the front line in the war on truth. Now truthis fighting back with an assist from Bush's own team. As oneintelligence official told the Washington Post, the report is simply"stating the obvious."

Unfortunately, this president has a talent for ignoring theobvious, for barreling ahead under the misapprehension that stayingthe course, even when the course is wrong, equals resolve. Becauseof this, we have sustained 23,000 American casualties in a war that,according to the government's own experts, is only making thingsworse. It's a failure whose fallout we'll be dealing with for years.

And there will be no debating who gets the blame.

Miami Herald