AFTER the first few days of public testimony in the ongoing 9/11 Commission, the verdict is in: President Bush did not have prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks. Testimony indicates there were security failures in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and more steps should be taken to make sure another attack doesn't occur on U.S. soil (and thanks to Bush, this is happening).
In the midst of such a high-profile investigation, some tidbits of information have slipped through the cracks, no doubt intentionally, by the media regarding our fiercest allies, the French, the honorable United Nations and, last but certainly not least, President Bush's predecessor.
In protest of the war in Iraq, some European nations (e.g. France) cite the argument about the Iraqi war not being linked at all to the war on terror.
This notion is simply incompatible with a sound rationale. Iraq's future poses the largest threat to terrorists, because it would represent a bastion of democracy amid several dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. Its success will perhaps pave the way for the demise of totalitarian governments that financially and ideologically back terrorist organizations. This explains why so many foreign terrorists have fled to Iraq to thwart Coalition efforts to rebuild the nation.
While Spain blames the United States for the horrific bombing in its country because of its participation in the Iraq war, France -- who was one of the lone countries opposed to war in Iraq -- has found two bombs on its train tracks in the past month. (Just for the record, the United States does have a coalition of 49 nations who have publicly announced support, larger than the Gulf War -- 28 nations -- and Clinton's NATO-backed Kosovo attack -- 18 nations.)
The message is this: No country is safe from terror. If this were not the case, the terrorists would be praising Jacques Chirac, not planting bombs. The French became a terrorist target even though they opposed the Iraq war, which negates the legitimacy of the claim that a lenient policy will result in less terror.
While it is not confirmed that al Qaeda planted the bombs, according to the Associated Press, the group responsible is thought to be either al Qaeda or a Moroccan terrorist cell with ties to al Qaeda. No one wishes ill upon France, but it is evident that even appeasement will not quell the terrorists' desires, similar to the failure of an appeasement policy toward Hitler immediately before World War II. Proactive measures, such as going after terrorists, are the only way to prevent further attacks. Media analysis of Spain's attacks was rampant; but the implications of France's vulnerability were not discussed at all.
However, The International Herald Tribune (based in Paris and owned by The New York Times) headlined an article, "9/11 panel cites warnings to Bush," which read, "Members of the commission... said that a series of intelligence reports sent to President George W. Bush in 2001 warned of an imminent, possibly catastrophic attack by al Qaeda, a disclosure that prompted harsh questioning of... administration officials about why they had not done more to pre-empt a possible terrorist strike."
Is this insinuating that Bush should have attacked al Qaeda before Sept. 11?
Another story that has received little attention is the U.N. Oil for Food program. The United Nations, which is supposed to be regarded with integrity, has lost all credibility (if it already hadn't after not enforcing any of its resolutions regarding Iraq for 11 years), with its duplicitous actions. This program, set up to provide humanitarian relief to Iraqis under Saddam's rule, was in fact a method of channeling billions of dollars into Saddam's pocket. Arab, Russian, French and British political and economic leaders all benefited; they received bribes in the form of oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein to keep the program's deliberate ineffectiveness under wraps. The New York Times reported on this about a month ago, but no new information has been publicized since.
The United Nations, which was supposed to be monitoring this program, obviously dropped the ball. We've all been well-versed in the alleged corruption of Halliburton, but this has yet to make a significant appearance in the media spotlight.
And finally, on to the Clinton administration. Reports surfaced soon after the Sept. 11 attacks that the Clinton administration was essentially offered Osama bin Laden's head by the Sudanese government in 1996 and again in 1997. In 1996, Sudan's minister of defense met with State Department and CIA officials, proposing to have Osama bin Laden extradited to Saudi Arabia and guarded with U.S. aid.
Mansoor Ijaz, who presented the offer to the U.S. government on behalf of the Sudanese president to share information with the U.S. about Al Qaeda in 1997, was turned down.
While some parts of these reports have been disputed by the Clinton administration, I doubt if such allegations were raised of Bush that they would go so unnoticed and without criticism by the media.
Whitney Blake is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at wblake@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 2 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 2 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 3 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
