[bondjamesbond]

This is all really pointless. Nobody was aggressive enough to stop bin Laden before 9/11. The country was just not in the right place for that kind of action back then. We were in our fat-dumb-and-happy phase, right up until the second plane hit the other tower. At that instant, everything changed.

To apply our post-9/11 sensibilities to what happened before that day is grossly unfair to everybody. I do not hold the Clinton Administration responsible for 9/11, and I do not hold the Bush Administration responsible either. I hold the Islamic terrorists who did the deed, and those who aided and abetted them, responsible.

It is bad strategery for the Republicans to try to cast blame on the Clinton Administration. If Clinton could have done something in his eight years, Bush could have done something in his eight months. But the simple fact of the matter is that the country was not ready for any drastic action until we had been attacked at home.

From a strategerological point of view, any report that concludes that Clinton was responsible will have to apportion some measure of blame to Bush. The final report could be titled "How Clinton Blew It", and have a picture on the cover of Bubba with a hand grenade in one hand and a box cutter in the other, and the message the public will receive is that 9/11 was preventable and it's all George W. Bush's fault.

[MEGoody]

"The country was just not in the right place for that kind of action back then. We were in our fat-dumb-and-happy phase"

I have to agree. If either Clinton or Bush had taken any significant steps to defeat terrorists, e.g. boots on the ground, the majority of the American people would have been screaming their heads off.