President-elect Obama's selection of former congressman and White House official Leon E. Panetta to run the CIA is likely to give Republicans fresh ammunition to reopen questions about the Clinton administration's counterterrorism policies.
Critics have long maintained that Clinton was uninterested in intelligence issues and slow to come to grips with the threat of Islamist terrorism, even after the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993.
Panetta was budget director and later chief of staff during the first Clinton term.
In an interview three months after the 9/11 attacks, Panetta said that senior Clinton aides viewed terrorism as just one of many pressing global problems.
"Clinton was aware of the threat and sometimes he would mention it," Panetta told the New York Times. But the "big issues" in the president's first term, he said, were "Russia, Eastern bloc, Middle East peace, human rights, rogue nations and then terrorism."
"When it came to terrorism, Clinton administration officials continued the policy of their predecessors, who had viewed it primarily as a crime to be solved and prosecuted by law enforcement agencies," the Times said.
Information gathered through grand jury investigations by the Justice Department after the 1993 bombing pointed to overseas, but the information was not shared with the CIA because of the "wall" that existed then between intelligence and law enforcement operations.
As for Afghanistan, the CIA virtually abandoned the region in 1989 after defeating the Red Army, and the Clinton administration (and Congress) did nothing to reverse that policy, leaving the spy agency with few sources to follow the emergence of al Qaeda.
Another Clinton aide back then, George Stephanopoulos, said he believed the 1993 attack did not gain more attention because, in the end, it "wasn't a successful bombing."
"It wasn't the kind of thing where you walked into a staff meeting and people asked, what are we doing today in the war against terrorism?" he added.
It wasn't until a truck bomb tore into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people, that plans to reorganize the government's counterterrorism efforts were revived, Panetta said.
If Oklahoma City could be hit, a terrorist attack could "happen at the White House," Panetta said.
Two months after the bombing, the Times reported, "Mr. Clinton ordered the government to intensify the fight against terrorism. The order did not give agencies involved in the fight more money, nor did it end the bureaucratic turf battles among them."
Three years later, Clinton responded to the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa with cruise missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, moves that drew caustic comments from Republican presidential aspirant George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign.
Panetta was appointed chief of staff to Clinton in 1994, and served in that position until 1997.
In 1996 he was handed the duty of informing then-CIA Director John M. Deutch that his appointment would not be renewed in the second administration.
He was a Democratic congressman from California's 17th district from 1977 to 1993.
Panetta was also a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
He is firmly on the record against the use of torture to interrogate terrorist suspects.
"We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that," Panetta wrote in The Washington Monthly last spring.
Panetta Choice Could Reopen Old Wounds on Clinton Terrorism Policies
By Jeff Stein | January 5, 2009 3:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
More from CQ Politics
Tags: Afghanistan, CIA, Clinton, counterterrorism, intelligence, Obama, Panetta
Search this blog
Insiders Network
Recent Posts
- Exclusive: USAF Demands Italy Lay Off Colonel in CIA Milan Caper
- Axles of Evil Often Trip Up Terror Suspects
- Interpol's U.S. Arm is Clueless, Justice Department Says
- CIA Officer in Italy Rendition Flap Enters New Phase
- Ex-CIA Official Challenges Logic of U.S. Fight in Afghanistan
- U.S. Intelligence Needs More than Another Report
- Karzai Brother a U.S. Snitch?
Subscribe to RSS feed
Archives
Links
- ABC Investigative Team
- Abu Aardvark
- Association of Former Intelligence Officers
- Attackerman
- The Cable/Laura Rozen
- CI Centre
- CounterTerrorism Blog
- Danger Room
- Dan Moldea
- Deep Background
- Human Rights Watch
- Intel Center
- Intelligence Online (Paris)
- Iraqslogger
- Investigative Reporters & Editors
- Mario Profaca
- Military Bloggers
- MoJo Wire
- Mouth of the Potomac
- National Security Archive
- Nieman Watchdog
- Nukes & Spooks
- OSS Society
- Planet War
- Raw Story
- Secrecy News
- Sic Semper Tyrannis
- ThreatsWatch
- Tickle the Wire
- TPM Muckraker
- War & Peace
- Washington Babylon
- Washington Independent
- Wired/Threat Level

Comments
Blair or Panneta? I guess that gets you off the hook for meddling with the process huh as the 'uber-liberal blogger'?? citing an earlier post and mudslinging
On 1993, wasn't that a FBI investigation where essentially the FBI gave the materials to the group that carried out that attack?
If the above assertion is is correct on 93, how can that be included as a failure in assesing the affectiveness of GWOT?
Maybe the assertion that 93 will raise issues won't hunt, maybe DOJ and Co. don't wanna go there???
I know not everybody is happy, never a perfect candidate for everybody, but nonetheless at least a candidate that knows probably not to reinvent the agency even if he opposes waterboarding Haiji for the WMD in the tunnels underneath Baghdad where the VP swore we would find the smoking gun.
I had to check here first for your speculation and editorial
Posted by: Dee Illuminati
| January 5, 2009 4:14 PM
Obama's pick was about political decision, not pleasing everyone (Greeks and Trojans alike).
Panetta's first job was as a military intelligence officer, and as WH COS, OMB director, Panetta Institute head and ISG member, he never ceased to be connected to intelligence matters, from form and structure to content and practice.
So he is an outsider to the intelligence community, but not a stranger.
That doesn't mean he will succeed.
Actually, what does it mean "to succeed", in the arcane world of intelligence, specially if you can never claim the laurels of victory, due to secrecy, and will only by responsible for you wrongdoings, as failures are always public?
Posted by: Nuno Rogeiro
| January 12, 2009 5:51 AM
Post A Comment