Acting Instead of Fronting*

Here's confirmation by the State Department, no less, that what many conservatives have been saying is true: the Clinton Administration let Osama bin Laden slip through its proverbial fingers; not once, but many times.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.
The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him. [SNIP]

The State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Two years after the State Department's warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen from the base in Afghanistan. [SNIP]

The State Department assessment, written July 18, 1996, after Mr. bin Laden had been expelled from Sudan and was thought to be relocating to Afghanistan, said Afghanistan would make an "ideal haven" for Mr. bin Laden to run his financial networks and attract support from radicalized Muslims. Moreover, his wealth, his personal plane and many passports "allow him considerable freedom to travel with little fear of being intercepted or tracked," and his public statements suggested an "emboldened" man capable of "increased terrorism," the assessment said.

(All emphasis mine.)

This isn’t rocket science. Bin Laden’s pattern was to warn, to strike, and in subsequent strikes, to up the ante both in body count and audacity (the USS Cole breaks the body count pattern), topping things off with 9/11 eight months after President Bush first took office. And the State Department predicted it after bin Laden moved to his comfy new digs in Afghanistan. And next to nothing was done about it on the highest levels of leadership.

From the first strike occurring one month after his first inauguration, President Clinton did nothing, acted ineptly or quit after failure in the face of Islamist terrorism, after repeated warnings and repeated strikes. And this now is confirmed by that bastion of conservatism, the State Department. What else is there to analyze?

There’s something, however, about the reaction to nineties terrorism that I don’t get it. Soldiers, Airman, Sailors and Marines died all through that decade via terror attacks without being enabled by the Commander-in-Chief to strike back and no one blockaded President Clinton's private home--wherever that was--asking why those men and women had to die. Hundreds of civilians—American and others—got blown to bits during the nineties, some for being American, others for simply being near Americans and no organizations or commissions were formed to investigate the failure to prevent those occurrences.

But let 911 occur, let thousands of civilians and GIs die and let the subsequent president have an (R) behind his name and let him act decisively to make terrorists think twice about attacking Americans and everyone with an activist gene in their DNA comes out of the wood work to scream in protest. Let a Soldier or a Marine die while shooting back or let his/her brothers-in-arms avenge his/her death, then all of a sudden these activists care about those "poor, stupid/deluded, misused military personnel."

Let any Republican president Do Something besides sit on his hands and worry about the opinion polls and all of a sudden it’s time to march, to label, to disrupt, to obstruct, to concoct and to investigate.

I don’t want President Clinton to give some national-televised mea culpa to the country. What he did (or rather, didn’t do) cannot be undone and at least he has had the integrity (or good sense) to acknowledge how, in 1998, he was talking the same talk as GWB. (The walk, obviously, is another story). I don’t even want the activist contingent to acknowledge that they really couldn’t give a rat’s backside about the heroic death of Casey Sheehan or the deaths—heroic or not—of any babykilling GI.

I just want them to get out of the way while men and women of action Do Something to protect this country and this way of life.

Is it too much to ask?

*Posturing

UPDATE: I've changed my mind about President Clinton:

Only at one point in our discussion does [President Clinton] allow something harsh about his successor. "I always thought," he says, "that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did."

As usual, all talk and no walk. He and the NYT big boys must have forgotten to compare notes.

I also wish,” he continues, “I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early. I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11, but it certainly would have complicated it.”

Now I know they forgot to compare notes.

Let's watch and wait for the reaction from the activist contingent to this blatant mendacity regarding national security on the part of yet another Democratic former president. It sure to follow directly.

(Thanks to Ken Wheaton, who is blog-sitting for the Commissar)

UPDATE: This soldier and I are on the same wavelength. Additionally, he gives some perspective on Iraq.

Comments

[Oddybobo]

This is not a revelation. It is something that is continually swept under the proverbial rug. The moonbats say that it is ok that Clinton let Osama slip on by time and again, but somehow, after only 8 full months in office, Bush was supposed to stop this mastermind from striking in one of the most horrific scenes in my lifetime.

[Justin]

That's right--the 1990s, when all of the Republicans were calling for a war on terror, and the 2000 presidential campaign, when Bush talked about going after bin Laden--oh wait, that stuff never happened, and, don't forget, Republicans (and leftists too) blasted Clinton when he bombed Iraq and tried to take out Osama with a cruise missile.

I'm not trying to get Clinton off the hook, but this was a failure of both political parties (yes, more so for the dems b/c they held the presidency). But, if anything, Bush was even less concerned with terrorism than Clinton before 9/11.

[Juliette]

Did the Republicans (or Democrats) in congress have access to the classified State department information, Justin? Did President Clinton?

Please show me where Republicans "blasted" the missle attacks because they were against attacking bin Laden and Hussein.

You just don't get it, do you? I wasn't criticizing WJC for talking/not talking about terrorism; I was criticizing him for talking and *not backing up* his words. Competent leaders do not bluff.

[beaupeep]

“I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early. I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11, but it certainly would have complicated it.”

I desperately wish... we could have... would have... too, Mr. President.

[Justin]

Did the Republicans (or Democrats) in congress have access to the classified State department information, Justin? Did President Clinton? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't, for example, the Senate intelligence commitee be provided with this information as well?

Please show me where Republicans "blasted" the missle attacks because they were against attacking bin Laden and Hussein.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. While many Republicans supported the missile attacks, many thought that Clinton was trying to divert attention from his personal problems--for example. Senator Dan Coats, Republican of Indiana, said about the missile attacks that Clinton's record "raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and maybe even everything he doesn't do and doesn't say." (see New York Times, Aug 21, 1998, page A-1). That's not really the point though, because many liberals criticized him for the attacks as well too, and many conservatives supported him.

You just don't get it, do you? I wasn't criticizing WJC for talking/not talking about terrorism; I was criticizing him for talking and *not backing up* his words. Competent leaders do not bluff.

Yeah, like when Bush responded to the "Bin Laden determined to attack US memo."

Look, I don't want to defend Clinton's inaction (I think Clinton had a poor foreign policy), but I also don't want to see this issue turned into a smear campaign against the democrats when both sides were guilty of inaction pre 9/11.

[Connie]

But didn't you hear? We're living in the past--dwelling on things that don't matter. None of that is going to help us in the future!

Pshaw.

Right up until you bring up the Cheney/Bush/Halliburton/Gulf I vindication of this father memes. Oh, no. THOSE we have to hear time and time again.

[DarkStar]

Justin and I are on the same page on this one.

When "Clinton launched missles" and killed camels, his opponents attacked him. When he "launched missles" at an aspirin factory, his opponents attacked him. I went after him for that one because the military was saying that the evidence was inconclusive that the plant was creating chemical weapons.

Be clear, I'm not defending Clinton.

Here, to date is something I still don't understand.

Pre-9/11, Clinton was given the chance to have bin Laden handed over to the U.S. and turned it down.

If the U.S. had bin Laden handed over, what could the U.S. do?

[baldilocks]

Don't quite understand your question Darkstar.

However, both you and Justin have switched the conversation over to what the Republicans and Democrats of the legislative branch of government did or didn't say or do.

Let's move the goalposts back to their original spot: the executive branch and its leadership or lack of same. Who is responsible for leading the nation (and the Congress) where he feels it should go? The president. And that president *should* be strong enough to actually make decisions and not be deterred from making them because he (and the decisions) might be criticized.

If one can't take the heat...

[DarkStar]

Let's move the goalposts back to their original spot: the executive branch and its leadership or lack of same.

OK, I didn't think I did move the posts, but here I go.

From what I got out of the "MSM", there didn't appear to be a strong target to go after for the Cole or embassy bombings. The reason why there was no strong target was because it wasn't state sponsored.

So, at the time, how do you go after that?

Now, I admit that I didn't follow teh Cole or embassy bombings closely.

[T-Steel]

I just want them to get out of the way while men and women of action Do Something to protect this country and this way of life.

Juliette (I feel the need to use proper names in this discussion), I think activists can't get in the way enough to stop the protection of this country. Regardless of the anti-war protests and rhetoric infinitum, out troops have been steadily doin' their thang. What WJC did or didn't do is irrelevant now since GWB is doing what WJC didn't do. Now it does make for one helluva discussion but the present is steadily rolling into the future. And our troops are on the cusp of it all.

Just the futurist in me, talking.

[T-Steel]

And as rapper MC Breed said back in 1991 with his classic song:

Ain't No Future in Yo' Frontin'!

Words all us need to live by, eh?

[Rae]

There's something conservatives didn't already know. Funny how the liberals are justifying, posturing, spinning. No wonder they aren't a little dizzy....

[Axel Kassel]

All of this raises the importance of determining what tawdry tales toddled untranscribed out of the National Archives in Sandy Berger's trousers.

[Justin]

Look, I do see your point--Clinton did nothing, he was the Commander in Chief and the responsibility is his etc.

I guess what I'm arguing against is the insinuation that if the other party was in charge we would have gone after Bin Laden, because that's just not true. Republicans never argued before 9/11 that we needed to get tough on terrorism, and Bob Dole, or GWB or whomever would not have acted any differently from Clinton pre-9/11.

And Axel Kassel, the thought of tawdry tales in Sandy Berger's trousers has just ruined my appetite;)

[Silicon Valley Jim]

The question of whether George W. Bush would have acted differently in response to, for example, the WTC bombing or the USS Cole attack is one that has exercised my mind for some time. For a long time, I believed that, because there wasn't any significant popular support for retaliation, he wouldn't have done so; the lack of any visible popular demand for any retaliation was surely the most important reason that Republicans in Congress weren't very exercised at the time.

I'm no longer so sure that W wouldn't have gone after al Qaeda, Bin Laden, etc. One of the striking things about him from where I sit is his willingness to do what he believes is right, regardless of what an opinion poll might say. The difference, in my view, isn't so much Democrats vs. Republicans as George W. Bush vs. most other politicians.

[Pam]

Trackback didn't work...

'Able Danger' and Lessons to be Learned

Blame for 9/11 has flown in all directions (including the loonies who say Bush knew about it and wanted it to happen). Let's get this straight. It is NOT Clinton's fault that 9/11 happened. It is NOT Bush's fault that 9/11 happened. It is NOT the fault of the FBI, or the CIA, or the TSA, or any other U.S. agency. Blame for 9/11 rests solely on Al Qaeda - with Osama Bin Laden, and 19 people who decided to hijack planes and murder innocent people...

[Justin]

I'm no longer so sure that W wouldn't have gone after al Qaeda, Bin Laden, etc. One of the striking things about him from where I sit is his willingness to do what he believes is right, regardless of what an opinion poll might say. The difference, in my view, isn't so much Democrats vs. Republicans as George W. Bush vs. most other politicians.

I don't think GWB would have gone after Bin Laden (can't prove it, just a theory), but I will give you that if Bush decided it was something he thought should be done, he would have done it.

But, as a counter to what I just said, why did the Administration insist on trumping up the WMD intelligence and Al Quada/Iraq connection if it wasn't concerned about public opnion?

[Marty]

"The State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia."

This struck a chord with me in that I have heard very little, if any, mention of Bin Laden in reference to Khobar. Is this something new, just speculation or what? If there is more information out there, it might bring a little piece of mind to my family.

[Silicon Valley Jim]

Justin,

I can't prove what I said, either.

I don't think that the Bush administration trumped up intelligence. I think that they believed what the British intelligence service told them with regard to WMD and with regard to attempting to buy enriched uranium (the latter of which appears to be true).

But I don't know, either.

[Evon]

Bill Clinton is doing out of office what he did while in office: talking. Or as George Wills once put it, "President Clinton gave a very sternly worded warning to [some group] that if they didn't [cease and desist something or other], he would most certainly give them another very sternly worded warning." Or a quote that is pretty close to that. The terrorists had Bill Clinton's number and probably will be contributing to his wife's campaign for president.

[Justin]

Or a quote that is pretty close to that. The terrorists had Bill Clinton's number and probably will be contributing to his wife's campaign for president.

Yeah, his wife who supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

[Al Barger]

Clinton has not lost the ability to just tell jaw-dropping lies. I was struck hearing a clip from, I think, Larry King's show where Clinton talks about how 9/11 proved that he had been right in his "virtual obsession" with Bin Laden when he was president.

So OK, maybe he misunderestimated the threat at the time. He had, let us say, other priorities. Mistakes were made. But to come back with "virtual obsession" now in the face of having done almost NOTHING about the guy- chutzpah.

[Russell Tupper]

Ok, a little history lesson here:

On February 26, 1993 the Twin Towers were attacked. Clinton was in office about a month.

Not one Democrat blamed Bush the elder. Or Reagan for that matter.

baldilocks sez: Since you want to teach history, show me a pattern of the Reagan and first Bush administrations ignoring terror attacks on US interests. You know, declassified memos that were ignored and the like. Also, since you're teaching history here, please tell me what our prime military objective was in the eighties.

Six Americans were killed. Over a thousand were wounded.

By 1998, five years after the attack, six islamic terrorists were caught given prison sentences of 240 years each.

baldilocks sez: I suppose the four intervening terror strikes against the US do not matter to you. What was done about those?

Flash foward to 9/11.

2,749 Americans lost their lives.

All I read here is "it's all Bill's fault"

It's been four years - we've invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, over 1800 American soldiers are dead, countless Iraqis are dead, wounded or homeless.

And UBL still breaths.

Yep - it's all Bill's fault.

-RT

baldilocks sez: Surely you're not suggesting that bin Laden's arrest will stop jihadis anymore than Saddam Hussein's arrest did.

And as for whether it's Bill's fault, bin Laden himself said straight out that the US was a paper tiger, due to Clinton's Somalia withdrawal after losing relatively few men. Bin Laden kept hitting harder, plainly believing that we would do nothing and it was WJC who enabled that.

Fine, WJC screwed up and I was willing to let it go. But the fronting in New York Magazine is just plain beyond the pale.

[StinKerr]

I'm not sure either that GWB would have gone after bin Laden. Althought the embassy bombings and the Cole bombing were very good reasons to pursue. As SVJ says above, the political will wasn't there. It would have to have been built up for any kind of large scale operation to have been supported.

"But, as a counter to what I just said..."

This thread has been going pretty well with an honest exchange of thoughts, some of which might go against our usual stances. To "counter" a moment of honesty with something less than honest isn't ... honest.

The WMD capabilities had been demonstrated several times and was one of those things that "everybody knew". The Iraq al Queda connection has been demonstrated also. Not a direct Iraq 9/11 connection, but Iraq al Queda.

It's okay to cede a couple of points from time to time. It helps the conversation. Sticking to a meme regardless of proof to the contrary is not constructive and only encourages others to do the same. Nobody gets anywhere then.

[StinKerr]

"Flash foward to 9/11."

Yep, flash forward ... past the two Embassy bombings, Khobar Towers and the Cole bombing.

There is a movement afoot to kill Americans and any other westerners and non-Moslems that they can reach.

Here we sit engaging in mental onanism over what someone should have done or what someone else would have done while they are trying every day to destroy us all.

What will it take to get certain people to understand that these fanatics mean to destroy us all?

[Justin]

"But, as a counter to what I just said..."
This thread has been going pretty well with an honest exchange of thoughts, some of which might go against our usual stances. To "counter" a moment of honesty with something less than honest isn't ... honest.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Bush clearly tried to build support for the war on the WMD and Al Quada connections, which were turned out to be the flimsier arguments for the war. I was against the war and am pretty anti-Bush, but I do think he went into Iraq with an honest belief that creating a democracy (in the loose sense of the word) in Iraq would help spread freedom in the middle east. I think that reason is misguided, but since I'm not an expert on the middle east, I was always (and still am) willing to concede that he may be proven right--and I hope he will be--I've been wrong about things in the past and I can take being wrong if freedom and democracy flourish.

But in reality, if he had presented the democracy/Saddam is a terrible dictator argument to the American people, I don't think that support for the war would have been as strong as it was. No way for me to prove it, I just know that Americans generally don't like sending troops in to overthrow dictators and rebuild countries.

And StinKerr it's sort of ironic for you to accuse me of sticking to a meme regardless of proof when that seems to be what you are doing given that (i) there was no Iraq/Al Quada cooperation and (ii) there were no WMDs.

As for point (i), it will take more than neo-con articles in the American Spectator to convince me that there was a connection, and I think that this is a point that is not worth arguing about, because you can send me links proving a connection, and I can send you links refuting the connection. All I can say is that if the supporters of the connection are still relying on diary entries and hospital treatments in Baghdad after being in Iraq for 2.5 years with full access to all Iraqi files and intelligence . . . well, let's just say I think we should have more evidence if there was an actual connection.

As for WMDs--there were weapons inspectors in Iraq that could have told us whether the WMDs were there. Bush decided that we needed to go to war immediately and the inspectors were not being aggressive enough. Bush turned out to be wrong on that point. I'm not trying to argue that Bush was somehow "bad" because he did this--he just used his judgment and was wrong. So, by the time of the invasion, it was not quite common knowledge that Iraq had WMDs (I mean real WMDs, not some mustard gas or something).

I still do not think that Bush would have gone after Al Quada pre-9/11, and that is based on the fact that he seemed to have no interest in terrorism pre-9/11, including his first ten months in office. I'm not blaming him for anything, because virtually nobody thought that Al Quada would be ramming planes into building on 9/11. I'm just trying to stop the "let's blame Clinton and the democrats for everything" argument from going much further.

[Russell Tupper]

StinKerr -

I used the "flash forward" statement merely to see if you would remember who blasted Clinton when he did try to take military action in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998.

Thanks for not remembering.

Clinton's bombing of terrorist camps in Afghanistan was called - at the time - "Wag the Dog" by the Very PEOPLE who now blame Clinton for not doing enough in the years between '93 and '01

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

[StinKerr]

I'm thinking that the given reasons were flimsy too, Justin. I watched/listened to Powell's presentation to the U.N. and when he was done I recall thinking that it wasn't enough.

The truth be told I didn't think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea at the time, but I also didn't think anything could be gained by invading Afghanistan. My reasoning was that it was mostly rubble already from the Soviet invasion/occupation and I didn't see any purpose in it.

I was wrong about Afghanistan. While we didn't get bin Laden we rolled up most of his organization, severely handicapped his supply and communications lines and have him on the run. We also removed the Taliban government that enabled his activities. No small thing, that.

I have come around to the idea that Iraq wasn't such a bad idea either. SH had been jerking everybody around for years. He made promises and cooperated only when he knew bombers were in the air on the way to Iraq or some other military force was evident. When the missions were cancelled he'd revert to the same old game of hide and seek and the promises were forgotten.

There is no doubt that Operation Desert Fox in 1998 achieved much of its purpose of destroying Iraq's ability to produce WMD, but nobody knew just how much it was hampered. Most of the programs went on while some may have been held in abeyance. Nobody knew the status of each program because there was no reliable information from the ground and satellites don't tell you everything.

Let's not forget the nearly two metric tons of enriched uranium that was removed from Iraq. Remember all the "dual use" precursor chemicals that have been found? I could probably show you some factories on a Sunday that have none of the product that they produce during the rest of the week, but the materials and equipment are all there to make that product again come Monday morning.

Then there was the unintended consequence of Lybia giving up their WMD programs too. Put that in the plus column.

If you look at a map of the middle east you'll note that Iraq is centrally located to all the countries in the region. It occupies probably the most strategic location there and would be an excellent base for furthering the GWoT. This was never given as a reason, as far as I know, but it's fairly obvious when one looks at a map.

Remember also that regime change in Iraq has been a U.S. policy, by law, since 1998.

The decision was made, the invasion has taken place, the dictatorship has been overthrown and the rebuilding has begun. To leave now would be devastating for Iraq as well as our own standing and reputation in the world.

We can't leave until the job is completed. To continue to protest and demand immediate withdrawl only encourages those who want to destroy us. We can't give them that.

I'm no dyed-in-the-wool Bush lover, but I considered him the better choice in 2000 and again in 2004. This despite his do-nothing attitude on illegal immigration. As I have said elsewhere on this site I'd like to have had a better look at Joe Lieberman in 2004.

[Joan of Argghh]

What fun it must be to be an editor at the NYT: "The declassified documents... shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

Damn. Eight years of Clinton saying, "Ah'm working as hard as I can, harder than evah in muh life..." Damn Whiner and Excuse-maker-in-chief. The NYT follows along in kind. bleh.

[StinKerr]

From the end of the article you linked, Russell:

But [Cohen] said he didn't think a large military action was realistic -- even after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole -- because Congress most likely wouldn't have supported it and neither would Pakistan, Tajikstan and other key nations in the region.

Commissioner Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, blasted Cohen's responses.

"We had a round in our chamber and we didn't use it. That's how I see it," he said. "I don't buy it."

Cohen again reiterated he thought an invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2000 was "unrealistic."

"We can be faulted for that," Cohen said. "I just don't think it was feasible."

Kerrey then responded: "I'll just say for the record, better to have tried and failed than to have not tried at all."

I'll add that Pakistan was resistant to our diplomatic overtures for their cooperation against Afghanistan after 9/11 too. They changed their attitude when a few carrier battle groups showed up off their coast loaded for bear.

After all, losing their entire air force, air defenses and whatever military bases it might be necessary to remove would be a distinct handicap in their longstanding feud with neighboring India.

Some might call it "gunboat diplomacy" and they'd be correct. It has a history of success from the days of Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary pirates. I see no reason that it wouldn't have worked for the previous incumbent.

It's not hard to imagine why "wag the dog" might have been an appropriate criticism. They didn't even try to sell the idea to Congress or anyone else. Just popping off a bunch of cruise missiles doesn't really accomplish much. Particularly when the target knows they are coming.

As to the "putting the blame on Clinton" thing. I think that it has sprung up on this thread because of him saying what he "would have done" were he still President.

He had the decency to refrain from criticising the present President in the aftermath of 9/11. Perhaps because it was coming out in hindsight that he missed opportunities to prevent it from happening. Perhaps it was just the courtesy (almost) always extended by former Presidents to the incumbent. (Jimmy Carter being the singular exception.)

Bush didn't blame him and he didn't blame Bush. There was plenty of blame to go around and that especially includes the agencies responsible for preventing things like this.

Terrorism was recognized as important enough by Bush that he kept the agency heads and the anti-terror task groups in place when he took office. It's just that those agencies repeatedly fell down on the job. Again, this is in hindsight which we all know is 20/20.

The "blame Clinton" meme also appears when the "blame Bush" crowd shows up and gets started as if there was no terrorism or terrorist threat before 1/20/01. That's what happens when people go to extremes; it drives even ordinarilly reasonable people to the opposite extreme.

[Jason Pappas]

The problem is not just bin Laden. It's a worldwide movement and both Presidents have lied about the threat. I talk about it here. If we keep talking about bin Laden as if the threat is a criminal organization and stopping one man is the aim, we'll lose the war. After all, the left keeps complaining that we still don't have him as if that's the only thing we should be doing. Sure Clinton screwed up but I'm not pleased with the efforts of the current administration either - it's far better - but not good enough.

[Neil C Reinhardt]

Ok, I'm a 70 year old former
paratrooper (101st Airborne) who strongy supports the Iraq war.

Still, Bush had MONTHS to take care of bin lauden and did not do ANYTHING about it. At least Clinton had first given orders to capture him & then bring him to trial.

When that did not any longer appear possible, Clinton gave orders to take him out. And the same thing which stopped it from happening (killing some princes of a friendly power) Bush would not have done it either.

Plus, if Clinton had taken some other steps considered,
he would have been accused of starting military action to take the spotlight off him getting his dick sucked. So blame yourselves neo-cons!

Neil C. Reinhardt

[Neil C. Reinhardt]

StinKerr talks like some radical Christian with all the hate toward the Moslems.

Well Clueless, the Christian religion is as least as bloody and war mongering and cruel and terrible as the Moslem religion is.

And anyone who has ACTUALLY read the ENTIRE Bible knows that is true.

In fact I URGE all Christians to VERY CAREFULLY read the Bible from cover to cover and take notes while you are doing it.

After all, doing that is one of the best ways to turn people into ATHEISTS!

I know of only 2 places where the Bible says NOT to Kill whereas I know of 28 places where the Bible tells it's believers TO KILL!

In fact, a "good" little Christian is supposted to KILL ME and do so JUST for what I have written here. (Of course you are also to kill kids who do not do what you say.)

Anyone who says the Bible is a good book either has not read that much of it OR they would
flunk a reading comprehension test.