Clinton knew about Osama bin Laden and Al-Quida after the first WTC attack. He also knew about Al-Quida role in the East Africa embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. Yet he did nothing.
In his defense, had Clinton know that Al-Quida was going to do what they did on 9/11, I think he would have gone after them (I hope he would). You know what they say about hindsite.
Here is an interesting artivle from 1998;
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/terrorism.html
Make of it what you will. I just found the author’s pre-911 attitude towards terrorism interesting.
911 caught America off guard. It was a sucker punch to our noses. No one every dream such a horrible thing was possible. Bush was in office only 9 months. He knew probably as much about Al-Quida as Clinton did. If you are going to blame one, you should blame the other.
Neither would have allowed such a horrible thing from happening if they could have.
Current Events » in reply to And it would be interesting to see what you said about Clinton in similar circumstances.
re: And it would be interesting to see what you said about Clinton in similar circumstances.
The whole thread (17 posts)
- Democrats indignant about mention of 9/11 in campaign
- Tough schitt. (n/t)
- "Watch for this trick"
- Just a side note...
- Refusing to tell the American people what they knew leads reasonable people to assume they could have prevented that attack.
