Jeffrey T. Kuhner

     He's back. Just when we thought that former President Bill Clinton was
out of the public spotlight, he delivered a speech at Georgetown University
last week on the state of "our world since September 11." His remarks caused
public outrage, and rightly so.
     Mr. Clinton stated that the United States is now "paying a price" for
its previous practice of slavery and for looking "the other way when a
significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed."
     Essentially, he drew a parallel between the terrorists who slammed jet
airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania
countryside, and the "terror" that has existed in America for hundreds of
years.
     The remarks were not only offensive, but false. The United States is not
"paying a price today" for the evils of slavery; rather, it paid a heavy
price in blood and treasure nearly 150 years ago when the Civil War that
ended the abomination of slavery resulted in 500,000 dead and deep social
antagonisms.
     Also, most of the Indian tribes that were wiped out following the
arrival of Europeans in the New World were not murdered over "land or mineral
rights," as Mr. Clinton suggested. Instead, more than 90 percent of native
American deaths were caused by contact with deadly foreign diseases such as
smallpox. This was an inadvertent consequence of European settlement.
     However, even more outrageous is that Mr. Clinton is suggesting a moral
equivalence between America's founding fathers and Osama bin Laden's army of
hate. Mr. Clinton believes that America is a flawed nation that is despised
by many people around the world, especially in the Middle East. Rather than
being arrogant and self-righteous in its current campaign against terrorism,
he wants the United States to be "more understanding" of the reasons for the
anti-Americanism in the region and to "engage the Muslim world in a dialogue."
     Mr. Clinton's speech reveals the instinctive America-bashing and intense
hostility to moral absolutes at the heart of modern liberalism. Mr. Clinton
and many other liberals are uncomfortable with the notion of the existence of
evil in the world. They cringe at the fact that the United States has no
choice but to lead an international coalition in defense of civilized values
against mass murderers such as the Taliban and al Qaeda.
     In his desire to blame America, he is blinded to the reasons for the
terrorist attacks. Slavery and the mistreatment of Indians has nothing to do
with the events of September 11. Bin Laden admitted that the atrocities were
committed in response to recent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East:
American troops based in Saudi Arabia, continued sanctions on Iraq and
Washington's support of Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians.
     Furthermore, bin Laden's terrorist network is not interested in
achieving rational foreign policy goals. Contrary to the claims of Mr.
Clinton and many on the left, Islamic extremists cannot be appeased by
dialogue or compromise: They are motivated by hate. Ultimately, bin Laden and
his supporters seek the destruction of Western civilization by targeting two
of its pillars — the United States, the symbol of the West's power and
cultural influence in the world; and Israel, the West's sole outpost in the
Middle East.
     Mr. Clinton's comments are offensive because they suggest that there is
some kind of moral equivalence between the United States and its "racist,"
slavery-ridden past, and today's Muslim extremists who kill innocent
civilians. There isn't. Thomas Jefferson — for all of his flaws — was no
Osama bin Laden.
     Moreover, to suggest that America is partially responsible for the
terrorist attacks is not only an insult to the families of the victims, but
undermines America's moral authority to conduct its current military
campaign. How can the world's leaders be expected to fully cooperate with
America's war on terrorism when one of its former presidents portrays the
United States as a nation whose history was dominated by "terror" against
blacks and Indians?
     Instead of bashing America, Mr. Clinton should focus on his
administration's failure to stem the tide of global terrorism. Under his
presidency, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was treated as a
criminal matter, rather than for what it was: an act of war. There also was
no military retaliation for the 1996 terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, or
the bombing of the USS Cole.
     Moreover, following the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East
Africa, Mr. Clinton launched a series of feeble surgical missile strikes
against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan that did nothing to dismember
bin Laden's network. In fact, Mr. Clinton's weak and ineffective response
only emboldened bin Laden into believing that he could murder innocent
American civilians and get away with it. The result was the heinous
atrocities of September 11.
  Yet, Mr. Clinton refuses to accept his share of responsibility for the
terrorist attacks. Rather than blame America, he should start by blaming
himself.


Jeffrey T. Kuhner is an assistant national editor at The Washington Times.

Reply via email to