If you can blame Clinton for not knowing about 911 a year before it happened, anyone else can blame Bush for not knowing about it in May of 2001. Remember that.

From the article:

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen. . . .

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

Emphasis mine.

I suppose if Clinton hadn't had a weak spot for women, he wouldn't have been weakened by scandal. If he hadn't been pursued by a Republican Party leadership who thought his sex life was of national importance, he wouldn't have been weakened by scandal either, and history might have been different.

Why dwell on complete hindsight when tunnel-vision hindsight is easier on the eyes?