When Richard Clarkes book came out several months a debate was triggered over who did more to fight al Qaeda pre-9/11, President Clinton or President Bush II. Clarke claimed that it was not a priority for Bush and it was a key (he may have said No. 1, but to be fair, I don't remember) priority for Clinton. What does this have to do with George Stephanopoulus you say?
Well I just finishing his book, "All Too Human" and al Qaeda is not mentioned once. Stephanopolous was on the White House Staff for Clinton's first term so maybe it is not fair to judge on the usage of the term al Qaeda. Let's look at other evidence.
The World Trade Center was attacked by al Qaeda in 1993. Now we know that Clinton didn't visit the site (I will be fair, who really knew that this was just the beginning), but this attack is not even mentioned in the book. Failed attempt to target US troops in Yemem..no mention. Attack on U.S.S. Cole...nope.
It has been said the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia proved their weakness to bin Laden. Here are some interesting quotes on the subject from the book:
Six U.S. soldiers were already dead in Mogadishu, and the firefight was still raging.
"We're not inflicting pain on these f**kers," Clinton said, softly at first, "When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers". Then with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony as if it were his fault: "I believe in killing people who try to hurt you, and I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pr**ks."
...Now the president felt trapped between two bad options: accepting failure by abandoning an ill-conceived operation, or avenging today's losses by going in with "decisive force" to defeat the Somali warlords. Once today's casualties were public, neither course would be easy to pursue. Congress would vote to "bring the boys home" while attacking Clinton for causing a humiliating American defeat. Retreating under fire would also end a humanitarian intervention that had saved thousands from starvation.
So far, the public had supported our presence in Somalia, but Clinton believed opinion would turn fast at the sight of body bags.pg 214
In quieter moments, Clinton questioned himself, wondering whether he had been tough enough. One Friday evening late in the month, he walked into my office looking exhausted, the bags under his eyes bunched up like the skin on chicken's neck. "This is what I'm worried about," he said, dropping a red folder on my desk. It was a report on renewed interclan fighting in Somalia that was threatening the food supply. "I hope I didn't panic and announce the pullout too soon."
"Listen," I said, "you had no choice. You got six more months. (earlier Stephanopoulos reported that Congress wanted an immediate pullout) If you had tried for more, Congress would have forced a vote to end it now, and they would have won. You did the best you could."
Here is where the intellectual honesty check needs to come in. Many have blamed President Clinton for turning tail and running in Somalia. If I am to take Stephanopoulos at his word, it had more to do with Congress (and polling data). At this time the Democrats still controlled the Congress, so maybe it is not fair to lay all of the blame on Clinton. Democrats in general? That is another story.
