WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) -- Finger-pointing over blame for al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attacks is in full swing in Washington, claiming the lion's share of the media limelight and pushing other newsworthy stories from the nation's front pages.
To hear each side tell it, they were the ones actively engaged in attempting to disembowel the terrorist organization before it committed the unthinkable, a massive attack upon the U.S. homeland following its successes in New York in 1993, East Africa in 1998 and Yemen in 2000.
The Clinton administration, its former officials told a congressionally established panel, fought the good fight but was hampered by international laws and insufficient intelligence. The Bush administration, they said or implied, just didn't take it all seriously enough.
President George W. Bush bristles at suggestions he fell down on the job by pointing out he was in office just some 200-plus days before Sept. 11, 2001, and claims counter-terrorism was his highest priority. Administration spokesmen back the assertion at every opportunity, citing memos, taped conversations and meetings to show an engaged administration that had formulated a plan to "eliminate" al-Qaida -- instead of merely rolling it back -- just days before the unthinkable became reality.
"The facts are these: (CIA Director) George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threats to the United States of America," Bush said this week. "And had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September the 11th, we would have acted.
"We have been chasing down al-Qaida ever since the attacks."
Chumming the waters through all the blame gaming is Richard Clarke, an American Talleyrand of lesser rank, who in print and in broadcast has painted himself as the proverbial voice in the wilderness. If all had just listened to him, he implies, the horror of that bright September morning might not have happened.
Clarke, who has worked for four successive presidents, was the chief counter-terrorism coordinator in the Clinton White House and later the Bush White House before he was demoted. He was also turned down when he sought to be the No. 2 person at the new Department of Homeland Security.
In his memoir, "Against All Enemies," and in subsequent interviews, Clarke criticizes both administrations for not acting hard or swiftly enough against the threat of terrorism, but he reserves special blame for Bush and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, the woman who demoted him.
Bush and Rice, he charges, didn't pay him heed and give al-Qaida the priority it required; instead they myopically focused on Iraq.
From there on, it has been a circus of he-said, she-said days on television, on Capitol Hill and in the White House press room, with accusations of self-serving book marketing, political motivation and just about everything in between thrown in as well.
Does it really matter all that much? If it does, how does it rank in the scheme of things? The United States is at war. It was at war before Sept. 11, 2001, but it took the atrocities of that day to bring the message home.
And while it is fine and dandy to point fingers, what about a little recognition of al-Qaida's skills? They may not be the most sophisticated group, but they know the business of mass murder.
Navy Adm. Husband E. Kimmel and Army Gen. Walter Short, the commanders in Hawaii when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, were hung out to dry for U.S. failures, oversights and omissions that resulted in the near destruction of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, but you can't deny Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto's daring and skill had something to do with the Japanese's success as well.
Did President Franklin D. Roosevelt know about the attack in advance and allow it to happen to drag the United States into World War II to save an against-the-ropes Britain? That doozey of a conspiracy theory is still being debated today by people with nothing better to do with their time. But in 1941, the president, Congress and the American people turned their attention to one thing: destroying the enemy.
True, 2004 is an election year. Playing politics with something so historic, so far-reaching as America's second Pearl Harbor can be expected, but it's time to put it to rest as best we can; it's time to concentrate our full attention on those who want to kill us.
Mistakes were made for years in the run-up to the hijackings and attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Some of the perpetrators had already been in the country for months; the plans and their financing were in the works for years.
If there needs to be a scapegoat, fine. Give 'em George Tenet, the CIA director. Give 'em Richard Clarke. After all, if he was as prescient as he claims he was, why didn't he do more to alert and motivate officials and the country?
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, simply called the 9/11 commission, is needed to find out where we fell down, what holes need to be plugged and how to move ahead, but pointing fingers for political points, book sales or ego are not.
Clarke, who resigned from the Bush administration in March 2003, has had his say. He has had his 15 minutes of fame, including a very theatric apology on behalf of all to the families of victims of Sept. 11 before his congressional testimony.
Well and good. Now let's move on and not let this or future alleged tell-alls divert us from the task at hand -- killing al-Qaida and their ilk.
