Quote: Animalman said: You say Clinton is "adverse to doing things the legal way", but you expect him to arrest Osama Bin Laden for crimes he hasn't yet committed? If this was from '96, then it was before the bombings of American embassies in Africa or the USS Cole(not to mention the obvious 9/11 attacks).
I was being a little "tongue in cheek" with my previous post, you know.
But wasn't Bin Laden already tied to the first attack on the WTC, which occurred in '93?
Quote: Clinton did get the Sudanese government to expel Bin Laden. Without clear evidence of involvement in terrorist activies, what could Clinton have done legally?
I think the evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the '93 WTC attack, while circumstantial, wasn't particularly different than the evidence against him the embassy and Cole attacks.
In any event, I posted this less as an attack on Clinton and more to point out my central theses here:
1. It's easy, in hindsight, to blame Bush for 9/11. But if you do that, you have to also blame Clinton. As a practical matter, however, neither man had been given a reason that the American people would have found sufficiently compelling to declare all out war upon prior to 9/11. 2. Would Kerry, given his stated opinion that the Clinton style of handling terrorism (primarily through law enforcement) is the preferable style, return to the failed policies of pre-9/11?
