Newsroom

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor Thursday to rebut partisan criticism of the President’s policies in the war against terror: Floor statement of U.S. Sen. John Cornyn Thursday, April 08, 2004"I want to say a few words regarding some of the accusations we have seen in recent times coming out of the 9/11 hearing and the Richard Clarke allegations in his book. I think it is important, through all the clutter, for the American people to understand one point, if they understand anything, about all the debate and the politics and the political rhetoric and posturing that is going on surrounding this issue. That is a question that was asked during the course of the Commission hearing by Commissioner Gorton. I think it is absolutely critical for the American people to understand both this question and this answer by Mr. Clarke. The question is from Commissioner Gorton of the 9/11 Commission, inquiring into the causes and circumstances giving rise to 9/11: GORTON: ‘Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001…which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action…assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?’ CLARKE: ‘No.’ I believe the American people need to understand that Mr. Clarke is not assigning blame to President Bush or his administration for what happened on 9/11, nor could he. As a matter of fact, we had seen, during the preceding years of the Clinton administration when Mr. Clarke held the role of counterterrorism chief, a number of attacks against the United States of America and against our soil. in 1993, Osama bin Laden directed al-Qaida's first successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil, blowing up a car bomb in the basement garage of the World Trade Center in New York City killing 6 and wounding 1,000. In 1996, there was another attack on the U.S. Air Force's Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia killing 19 Americans and wounding 515 Americans and Saudis. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked by al-Qaida suicide bombers who killed 234 people and wounded more than 5,000. In 2000, al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole killing 17 American sailors and wounding 39. So it is clear that during the preceding 8 years that Osama bin Laden had been terrorizing America and taking American lives in the process. It is simply unfair for Mr. Clarke, or anyone else for that matter, to suggest that during the 8 months President Bush was in office that he should have or could have somehow done anything more than was done to try to prevent the events of 9/11. And, indeed, Mr. Clarke in a flash of candor through all of the attempts he has made to try to promote his new book -- and, by the way, he has been very successful; I see on Amazon.Com his book is the No. 1 or No. 2 most ordered book. He has been very successful in promoting his book -- but in a flash of amazing candor, we see that he now admits there is nothing the Bush administration could have done in 8 months that the Clinton administration had not done in 8 years to prevent the tragic events of 9/11. Some in Washington, DC, I guess we have all come to learn, are world-class second guessers. Now armed with the benefit of hindsight, there are those who want to pick through the rubble, through e-mails, and through memos to try to assign blame. But we ought to be clear about this: The blame for what happened on 9/11 lies squarely with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida -- not on the American people, not on President Clinton and his administration, and not on the President or his administration. These are good, patriotic Americans who I am confident were doing everything they knew of that they could possibly do to prevent the terrible tragedy this Nation suffered on 9/11. It is insulting that anyone would suggest this administration or the previous administration, now with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, might have done something to stop this unfathomable horror. It is important to place responsibility where it lies; and that is with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. we also find ourselves in a strange new dimension where on the one hand President Bush is criticized for acting too decisively to take out al-Qaida, to take down the Taliban government in Afghanistan and then remove a bloodthirsty tyrant in Saddam Hussein, and now, on the other hand, these same critics want to complain that he should have done more. we ought to be very clear about where the blame lies for the events of September 11. But I point out one thing: President Bush has acted as decisively as any leader could have possibly acted in removing the Taliban from Afghanistan, by disrupting the training camps of al-Qaida in that country and then acting decisively against Saddam Hussein. The United Nations issued 14 different resolutions threatening him with the use of force if he did not comply with those resolutions, which he had never complied with during the entire course of the post-gulf-war period from 1991. I think most Americans would be a little surprised to learn we never had a peace treaty after 1991, because Saddam Hussein continued to defy the United Nations and the free world by his continued acts of avoiding United Nations inspections. He played a game of cat and mouse. Just when he thought we were developing the courage -- the United Nations and others -- to take him to task, he would relent temporarily only to kick the inspectors out and continue to defy the United Nations inspections. My final point is there are some, including the Senator from Massachusetts, who have called the war in Iraq "another Vietnam." The Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, I think did as good a job as possibly could have been done -- certainly a person who has enormous credibility on that issue, having served so ably in Vietnam and, unfortunately, having been a prisoner of war there for a time -- I think he did a very good job of refuting that and really showing the truth about that sort of scurrilous accusation. It is the kind of speech I worry has the possibility of a tremendously negative effect on our war on terror. our enemies should not be confused about our commitment to follow through, win the war on terror and crush our enemies in the process. I grew up during the course of the Vietnam war. I remember what it was like in this country when our men and women in the field returned to this country only to find the American people did not support them as they should have and where America lost its resolve and strength of will. We should never let that happen again. It was a terrible American tragedy. For anyone to suggest that America is going to suffer loss of will or resolve in winning this war on terror is simply wrong. I think we should not be fooled into thinking when Senators or any government official or anyone stands up and equates what is happening in Iraq and what is happening in Afghanistan and what is happening generally in the war on terror with Vietnam -- they are providing fodder for our enemies. They are encouraging our enemies to think that perhaps we will lose our resolve and give rise to, I think, increased attacks against our troops on the ground and undermining our war effort generally. I certainly don't suppose anyone is doing that intentionally. But I think we need to be careful about the words we use. I would say in closing that words are important. Words have meaning. The words that are said today won't be remembered just in the context of election year and partisan politics; they will stand in history for future generations to read and study with a critical eye. In the end, we must focus on the battle with our c