January 20, 2001, was president Clinton’s last day. After eight years that to all accounts were good years for the U.S., he left the White House as a good president overall. Less than eight months later, the world was forever changed by the horrors of the September 11th 2001 events.

Was Clinton responsible for these attacks?

A superficial analysis, which many will support, says—absolutely. The attacks were in the making for many, many months. The CIA and FBI under his watch failed to prevent those. Most importantly there were many precursor attacks—the Africa embassies in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, etc. Some would say, and with the benefit of hindsight would be correct, that Clinton should have reacted with much more force and resolve toward these attacks and commenced a hunt for Bin laden and Al Qaeda, as well as strengthen the homeland defenses. In retrospect, there is no doubt that he should have done much more.

However, this is fair only in retrospect and with hindsight. No one sitting here in 1998 or 2000 would have suggested, recommended, dreamt of, or supported a much stronger response to these attacks. At the time, the response seemed to be calibrated and wise. It was a different world—different circumstances—and no one could have imagined or predicted what happened on 9/11/2001.

I am here to trumpet the warning horn, to sound the alert, to CLEARLY and categorically state that the next serious terror attack on U.S. soil or against U.S. interests will be the absolute responsibility of President Obama, whether it happens during his term in office or after.

Obama does not have the Clinton defense of not knowing, of not being able to predict.

For the record right here and right now it is important to state that when the next significant attack against U.S. interests whether here or round the world comes and it transpires that it was perpetrated by a terrorist or a few who learned their trade in Syria, there should be no doubt in our mind that:

  • It was and is predictable.
  • It is being predicted right here and now by me and others.
  • It was easily preventable, relatively speaking.
  • It is still possible to maybe make it much more difficult and maybe prevent it.
  • It was and is the total and clear responsibility of president Obama and his complete failure to act in Syria time and time again.

Obama could have intervened in Syria three years ago. I admit that at the time it was a bit hard to expect that from anyone. I did not think three years ago that this was a serious rebellion but then I am not the president of the USA and I do not have the CIA and other agencies working for me. Had he done so then it would have been a cakewalk to prevent Syria from becoming an Al Qaeda stronghold that it is now.

He should have intervened two years ago. Few people including yours truly said that already at the time and predicted the continued chaos and instability that would result from no intervention.

He should have intervened about eighteen month ago when his entire national security team recommended it.

He should have intervened six months ago when after ducking and weaving for months (using excuses like “We do not have the chain of custody for the evidence…” seriously he did say that to explain why he is not reacting to a prior chemical attack.) he could not deny anymore that the Syrian government crossed his own defined red line.

He MUST intervene now when his directors of intelligence and CIA both admit before a congressional hearing that:

  • Al Qaeda is as much a threat now as they were before 9/11/2001
  • That there are 6,000–8,000 EUROPEANS being trained with Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria out of about 20,000 combatants (I do not know that correct number but I will lay a big bet that the maximum number that Al Qaeda had in training in Afghanistan in their hay day was less than 5,000 in total and of those maybe 20, if that, were Europeans).
  • The risk of them attacking the U.S. and or Europe is very high.

When the next atrocity occurs, whether or not he is still in office, history should NOT forget who allowed it all to happen. Who was told time and time again that he cannot ignore the Syrian conflict and that it will have repercussions for the USA.

By the way, a day before this congressional testimony, the president chose to reference Syria as one of his successes in the very short space he allocated to foreign affairs in his State of the Union Address (SOTU).

According to him, U.S. diplomacy backed by the threat of military action brought a great success in eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons.

Two days after the SOTU speech, the State department admitted that Syria is dragging its feet, they are way behind schedule, and it became known that as of now, only 4.1% of the DECLARED total quantity (let alone what they did not declare) of chemical stockpiles has been delivered to the international bodies responsible for destroying those.

What a liar Obama is! Would the media allow Bush to get away with such a stark misrepresentation of the facts in a SOTU address?

Not on your life.

And to top the week in the Syria crisis annals, the “Geneva II” “peace conference” ended with ZERO achievements. Not even a date for the next meeting agreed on. This was not a surprise to anyone with any realistic assessment of the Syrian conflict. Everyone else, people who said that this conference may provide some successes, are either stupid or liars.

The president’s lack of action in Syria and the PREDICTABLE consequences of such a lack of action are clear. Therefore I say here and it needs to be said in public and be told across all media:


Even if by then he is sitting on the beach in Hawaii or in his home in Chicago.

This is for POSTERITY. This IS his legacy.