Why Clinton failed to stop bin Laden

USA Today Front Page ^ | 2-11-02 | Susan Page

[operation clinton cleanup]

Isn't it a trait of children of alcoholics to accept abuse and not fight back because they feel they deserve it?

Would explain a lot.

[twigs]

They weren't supposed to be saying things like this.

I have always believed that the primary reason a slimy politician like Clinton gets away with what he does is that too many Democratic trend-setters (writers, teachers, etc.) and to some extent voters, is that they first have to admit that they were wrong about their support of a vile man. That's a very difficult bridge to cross. Once it's done, however, those who see the error of their ways have nothing left to lose. They've already admitted that they were duped. All that's left is to dump their ire on the one who fooled them. Ever met a former smoker? They're the most committed to the non-smoking crusade. Same principal at work.

[mombonn]

But nothing the Clinton administration did over 8 years . . . thwarted bin Laden's network and its terrorist ambitions.

Even Clinton's defenders acknowledge that, for much of his tenure, fighting terrorism wasn't his highest priority.

Thank heaven for a new commander-in-chief who says, "I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 tent and hit a camel in the butt."

[Quilla]

My goodness, I hadn't noticed the date until you mentioned it. And for a minute there I thought the editors of USA Today had changed political affiliation and were addressing the current bashing on our President. Very astute of you!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I tend to agree with you. I would have liked to see someone stand up for Elian, but when people are showing up in your driveway threatening you, I can see why the rank and file would pass on making waves.

[steve-b]

Critics contend that Clinton should have done more to take on terrorism and transform public opinion, even in the absence of a catastrophic attack.

He could muster a political blitz to save his own miserable hide, but not for what he considered the lesser stakes of national security.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

bump for later

[Behind Liberal Lines]

bump 4 later

[Behind Liberal Lines]

bump 4 later