Yes, that would be enough. But even better would be to start in on how the government handled the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of two embassies in Africa and the Khobar bombing as police matters, not the acts of war they were.
She could have mentioned ABC's "The Path to 9/11" which Robert Iger has hidden in a vault at Disney, refused to put on DVD and refuses to sell as evidence of who those who refused to take terrorism seriously during the Clinton adminstration are trying to hide their tracks.
>> [...] But even better would be to start in on how the government handled the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of two embassies in Africa and the Khobar bombing as police matters, not the acts of war they were. She could have mentioned ABC’s “The Path to 9/11” which Robert Iger has hidden in a vault at Disney, refused to put on DVD and refuses to sell as evidence of who those who refused to take terrorism seriously during the Clinton adminstration are trying to hide their tracks.
(1) She fell on her ass trying to come up with “No”. Lets not overcomplicate this.
(2) There is a difference in being “involved” in the 9/11 attacks, and being culpable due to bureaucratic and policy failures. She didn’t indicate possible negligent culpability ... she inidicated possible complicity.
SnakeDoc