Posted on 07/16/2005 11:48:18 PM PDT by L.A.Justice
Clinton Administration treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem and stayed that way until 911 happen. His administration couldn't decide if they should kill UBL or capture him. Clinton didn't want to send 100,000 troops into Afghanistan. Quite frankly, the American public would object to a invasion to get Bin Ladin and AQ. If we don't see danger in our mist why bother attacking the problem? It would be hard for Bush in his first 8 months to do the same. We lived in a pre 9/11 world. What I'm concerned about what has been done after 9/11. Let see, we don't treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem and worried about the legalities. No more pussy footing around!
I have a question for you! People say there is no Saddam-AQ connection but if you go back into the 90's there was so much information about the connection. Why the cover-up?
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8.htm
Unravelling the eight years of nonsense and inaction and installation of worthless hacks that Bill Clinton left? Clinton always saw counterterrorism as a legal and police action, even after the Cole was attacked.
But it's amazing that you cry that Bush didn't act in eight months when Clinton had eight years. And the Dems were so serious about getting to the failures that led to 9-11 that they appointed Jamie Goerlick, one of the key architects of the failure, to the commission.
LOL! Can I use that for a tag line?
Beautiful post. And thank you for your service.
Be my guest, I just didn't know where they were going with the questioning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.