How NOT to fight terrorism

Well, let's look at the past, shall we?

• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.

• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.

• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.

• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.

• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.

Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.

• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.

• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

Look, it wasn't just Clinton's failure. It was the failure of every president since Richard Nixon, as far as I can see. But there's one big difference between Clinton and everybody else: Clinton is the only one to go on TV wagging his finger and trying to avoid the blame. The sheer narcissism of that man makes me want to puke. And then his shrill harpy of a wife goes on TV and tries to blame the Bush administration for September 11th? I don't theeeenk so, Lucy!

Again, there are those who think all this finger pointing helps no one. That's their opinion. But the actions of the Clintons and their syncophants are a reveiling look into the Dimocrat mindset, where they can do no wrong, even if it costs 3000 lives. So every time they lay their pee-pee out on a block like Bubbah did last Sunday, it is our obligation to take a sledgehammer and hit it. Personally, while I think that the government has been rather limp-wristed when it comes to truly fighting terrorism, I'll take the Bush approach over the Clinton approach any day of the week. So let's keep the spotlight on how badly the Dimocrats screwed up, and how much they continue to screw up with regards to fighting terrorism. Who is it that wants constitutional rights for terrorists in Gitmo? The Dimocrats. Who wants to stop killing jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Dimocrats. Who wants to stick their heads back in the sand and ignore that terrorism even exists? The Dimocrats.

Let's focus that spotlight a little bit more. Every time one of the Clintons opens their mouth, we should be there to shove their feet inside it.