PoliBlogger asks the rhetorical question, “Was Janet Reno the worst AG we have ever had, or what?” and notes

a key difference between the Clinton and Bush approaches to terrorism: sending in the FBI to arrest bin Laden is treating the situation from a law enforcement perspective. The Bush “War on Terror” is the more appropriate approach, I would argue.

Especially ironic since Reno treated law enforcement problems like military ones, as in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elian Gonzalez.

FILED UNDER: Terrorism, US Politics, , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. craig henry says:

    I agree with your point 100%, but fairness compels me to note that Ruby Ridge was a pre-Reno operation.

  2. James Joyner says:

    D’oh. I just so seems like a Reno Operation. But, yes, it happened months before she took office.

  3. Don says:

    I’d disagree; John Mitchell, Nixon’s AG and Chairman of that legendary Committee to Re-Elect the President, was the worst in our history, IMHO. I think Reno had her flaws to be sure, but I never saw reason to doubt her motivations.

    As for the Bush/Clinton dichotomy with regard to terrorism, I think the Bush approach is the more appropriate one only in the aftermath of 9/11. Besides, Clinton would have been accused of starting a war to draw attention away from the sex scandal had he taken the Bush approach.