This is some really bad reporting - I can't see that anything which Clinton said justified the paraphrase that the reporter and his editor used as their headline. Clinton spoke clearly about 2 separate issues, one involving the formation of the United States, the other involving his views on the current attacks, and how the reporter misunderstood that or what the reporter hoped to gain by distorting that is something I really don't have time for.

That said, Clinton's analysis of the roots of "middle eastern" terrorism is incredibly shallow; indeed, it avoids mention of exactly the issues which he urges be discussed, which are those of the relationship between Israel, its neighbors, and the US. Clinton's remarks are the kind of vapid "me generation" talk about "personal responsibility" that can get you elected by the boomer generation, but which do little to face the real issues at hand.
The new Puritanism: No longer is wealth is the reward by God for living according to his rules, a show of divine favor, but now wealth is the reward for personal responsibility. Are we really supposed to believe that those individuals killed and wounded in these attacks suffered because they were not "personally responsible"? Are we now to leave their survivors to their fates, to pay for own their lack of "personal responsibility"?

In closing, I'd just like to remind everyone that you can't believe everything you read.

EP