Consistency, Clinton Style

Praise be to God! Bill Clinton has finally weighed in on Gitmo!

In an interview with the Financial Times, the former president called for the camp, set up to hold suspected terrorists, to "be closed down or cleaned up".

Mr Clinton joined critics at home and abroad who have singled out the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial and widespread reports of human rights violations at Guantanamo. "It is time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused," he said.

Mr Clinton said the test for judging whether harsh treatment of terrorist suspects was justified was whether it challenged the "fundamental nature" of American society. "If the answer is Yes, you have already given the terrorists a profound victory."

Since al Qaida are trained to claim abuse, the only way we're going to stop stories about abuse from coming out of there is to set these enemy combatants free. Surely he doesn't mean this, does he? Let's look at his other words and deeds to see for ourselves.

The article then goes on to point out that,

Mr Clinton was careful to avoid criticising the administration on the issue of indefinite detention. In three or four cases, his own administration had resorted to a US law that allows suspected terrorists to be held beyond the normal length of time without trial, if bringing an indictment or trial would compromise intelligence sources.

So he's not only a kibbitzer, he's a hypocrite. And, on top of that, let's recall one "case" that wasn't among the "three or four" Clinton pulled punches over: the big one that got away.

Sudan offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden at this meeting, according to [Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih] Erwa. He brought up bin Laden directly. "Where should we send him?" he asked. This was the key question. When Sudan turned over the infamous Carlos the Jackal to French intelligence in 1994, the CIA covertly provided satellite intelligence that allowed Sudanese intelligence to capture him on a pretext and escort him to the VIP lounge at the Khartoum airport. There, he was met by armed members of French intelligence and flown to Paris in a special plane. Would the CIA pick up bin Laden in Khartoum and fly him back to Washington, D.C.? Or would bin Laden go to a third country?

The CIA officer was silent. It was obvious to Erwa that a decision had not yet been made. Or perhaps his offer was not quite believed. Yet, the Sudanese official was still hoping for a repeat of the French scenario. Finally, the CIA official spoke. "We have nothing we can hold him on [italics added]," he carefully said. Erwa was surprised by this, but he didn't let on. He was still hoping for a repeat of the French scenario, a silent and quick operation to seize bin Laden and bring him to justice. . . .

Good thing we didn't violate Osama bin Laden's civil liberties by capturing him and holding him indefinitely without trial! That might have handed him a "profound victory."

Why the hell did the Financial Times let Clinton get away with this? The article says nothing of Clinton's refusal to deal with bin Laden -- but they do mention his role in the tsunami relief effort.

During the interview Mr Clinton also discussed his role as special United Nations representative on tsunami relief and the Clinton Global Initiative, his plan to bring together politicians and business people to discuss solutions to some of the world's most intractable problems [except terrorism --ed].

Good job, Bill! You do nothing about terrorism on your watch, you damn Bush for what he has done, and then you turn to graver matters than terrorism, such as your own pathetic need to bask in the media glow. But back to my question: Why is Clinton getting softball interviews like this?

Recall how the Hollywood left clammed up after the atrocities of September 2001? And recall how poorly George Bush has been keeping us focused on the war? And recall recent poll numbers showing that Americans are getting impatient over Iraq? Our president's lack of leadership, like a power failure in a roach-infested house at night, is causing the vermin to crawl out of the woodwork.

Well, I guess if there's one thing Bill Clinton does know a thing or two about, it's handing "profound victories" to terrorists. Too bad he and the media are in full agreement that they shouldn't be behind bars. But for the sudden proliferation of the Clintons, Bidens, Amnesty Internationals, and John McCains, we have one taciturn, inarticulate man who seems contemptuous of the power of ideas, to blame: George Bush.

It may be obvious to you, George, that we should trap or kill terrorists, and it may be obvious to me, but quite a few people apparently need reminding from time to time. Don't ask me why. Just do it.

Please?

-- CAV

PS: Via Instapundit, I have learned of a fascinating quote on the matter of supporting one's president in a time of war. Interestingly, it's a quote by Dick Durbin of all people, defending Bill Clinton for attacking Iraq!

I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.

So, aside from the obvious question of why Durbin jettisoned his own advice regarding commanders-in-chief, one wonders why Bill Clinton, of all people, is second-guessing his immediate successor! Clinton, who has done his time in the hot seat, should know better than to kibbitz George Bush. So, to ask the question that repeatedly came to my mind during the Clinton presidency: "Does he not know or does he not care?"

If Clinton really cared about his country rather than getting attention, he'd offer Bush his advice privately and then, as a professional courtesy, shut up in public for the sake of national unity.

Updates

6-21-05: Added PS.