[Alberta's Child]

Ijaz's general point about the incompetence of the last administration is a good one, but on this issue I don't see what the big deal is.

If the Clinton administration had handed down a criminal indictment in the aftermath of Somalia, I think everyone who lurks on this site would have been f#&%ing outraged.

[MamaLucci]

I really think Ijaz's point is, as wrong headed as Clinton
was in handling terrorism as a law enforcement problem,
having taken that tack, a criminal indictment of OBL
would have represented at east SOME
sort of action on the Clinton administration's part.

[thoughtomator]

The point is that the Clinton admin line about treating terrorism as a criminal matter is debunked - their negligence was not simply due to a lack of an acknowledged state of war, but goes far deeper than that. The Clinton admin actions seem to have deliberately avoided doing anything that would be effective.

Clinton, by giving us the "terror-fighting-by-law-enforcement" line is giving us yet a new meaning of "is". IF he was fighting terror by law enforcement, how come, in this case that cried out for that enforcement, there seemed to be a willing effort to prevent the government from being able to pursue OBL? Between the "wall", the lack of an indictment against OBL, turning down multiple Sudanese offers to turn him over, and the futile symbolic military actions (that handed cruise missile tech to the highest bidder jihadi scavengers could find), there is nothing in Clinton policy that could be regarded as a sincere fight against terrorism, effective or not.