[AZLiberty]

This seems to say that if Clinton had responded to the USS Cole, then Al-Qaeda might not have brought down the World Trade Center towers.

[COEXERJ145]

This seems to say that if Clinton had responded to the USS Cole, then Al-Qaeda might not have brought down the World Trade Center towers.

It wouldn't have done any good. The people preparing for Sept. 11th were already here. Clinton should have attacked Al-Qaeda in the mid 1990's before they had the strength and organization to carry out a massive attack on U.S. soil.

[Right Angler]

"they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate more seriously against what had happened to the Cole."

Sounds to me like a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize Clinton's total lack of response to the Cole attack. "See? They WANTED us to attack them. Bill sure understood those terrorists."

[MizSterious]

Oh, it goes back much further than that. We should have turned Iran into a burnt crisp when they took the hostages, but Jimmah preferred to treat those early terrorists as if they were actually legitimate.

[Coldwater Creek]

If Reagan had responded to the bombing of our Marines, there might not have been several terrorist attacks.

[momf]

So, it really IS Clinton's fault!

[hubbubhubbub]

"This seems to say that if Clinton had responded to the USS Cole, then Al-Qaeda might not have brought down the World Trade Center towers."

Clinton couldn't respond to the Cole bombing. At the time he was trolling for $$ for his trailer trash monument library in Little Rock and the only funders he could find were fronts for terrorist groups!!

[GraniteStateConservative]

This seems to say that if Clinton had responded to the USS Cole, then Al-Qaeda might not have brought down the World Trade Center towers.

I don't recall Bush making the failure to retaliate a major part of his campaign to go along with a promise of retaliation once he came to office. Everyone had their thumbs up their asses.