Clinton and bin Laden

I’m really not so interested in rehashing, yet again, what Clinton did or did not do to get bin Laden. I’ve said my piece on that, and I still think blaming Americans in either party for September 11 is deeply misguided. (Although for those who want to head down memory lane, Jake Tapper has a great roundup on Clinton’s efforts to blame 1990s Republicans for making the “Wag the Dog” argument, and Patterico looks at Chris Wallace’s record asking Don Rumsfeld about this sort of thing).
If Clinton really wants to go on the offensive on this question, all that needs be said is that he didn’t get bin Laden and he didn’t stop what was coming; history will regard the rest as details.

2 thoughts on “Clinton and bin Laden”

  1. Well, the republicans did indeed pull a wag the dog argument, and that stupid impeachment move did divert lots of attention. That said, to blame that as the reason Clinton did not stop bin Laden means no understanding of the slow and gradual rise of Islamic Fascism that is threatening Western Civilization for this generation.
    It’s like blaming Bush for increasing the number of terrorists by being in Iraq. In both cases, the disease of terrorism has many other causes and rises. So how about we stop blaming ourselves for the gangsters rise to power. Yes we’ve helped grow the situation, but more by every president since at lease Carter (the biggest boob in the oval office in my lifetime) to have no real energy policy. When you basically have a huge monetary transfer to the middle east because we simply buy their oil (and the Bush ties to the oil business is a factor), well, we are selling the terrorists the rope; sorry to paraphrase Lenin.

  2. I agree, it is past time for the blame game. Now the problem needs to be fixed.
    I have only seen clips, but Clinton’s meltdown with Chris Wallace appears to have been a classic.

Comments are closed.