Yep, that's right, for those of you who don't recall, the World Trade Center was first bombed by Al Qaeda in 1993. Strangely, though Bill Clinton now claims he was obsessed with finding Osama bin Laden throughout his entire administration, he actually turned down (more than once) Sudan when they captured bin Laden and offered to hand him over. Clinton says that at the time there wasn't enough evidence to hold him.
Uh-huh.
Michelle Malkin compiles links to lots of tributes and remembrances.
I encourage you to remember what happened, and remember who got us there. Then remember who's fighting back.
There's my two cents.
1 comment:
Come on. I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but the game of hindsight leaves no one untouched.
First, the 9/11 Commission found that there was no credible evidence that Bill Clinton explicitly turned down Bin Laden. I don't totally understand the dynamics, but there were problems with authority, indictments, etc.
Second, there are some who say that GOP stalling prior to the 1998 airstrikes against Sudan and Afghanistan may have allowed Bin Laden to slip away from one of the targets.
Third, let's not forget how Bin Laden came to be. During which President's watch did he get weapons, etc. from the US? I'll give you a hint...it starts with R and rhymes with Beggin'. Maybe he's to blame for 9/11.
Fourth, international politics is a complicated game, where seemingly beneficial relationships can turn sour (another fine example...Donald Rumsfeld happily shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 80s). Probably every president has made some mistakes.
Now I'm not saying that Clinton is not to blame. I'm not saying he is. I'm not saying Reagan is to blame. I'm not saying he's not. The problem with your cheap shot (and that's what it was) is that it's hard to foresee and predict the consequences of certain actions on the world stage. Had Clinton known in the mid-1990s that Bin Laden would successfully orchestrate 9/11, I am 100% sure he would have held Bin Laden if he had the opportunity and even if he had no evidence and it would violate human rights, etc. (just like I think any president, and probably any person, would). The problem was he didn't know. Was it a mistake for him to underestimate the danger (if he even did that)? Perhaps. But no more so than any of the other 100s of people who contributed to the governtmental, intelligence, and bureaucratic failures that allowed al Qaeda to pull off 9/11.
The bottom line is the situation is way more complicated than "nasty ol' Bill Clinton let Osama go and do 9/11."
Post a Comment