Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Startup
I don't blame Bush for not preventing 9.11. He probably didn't have the requisite evidence to prove that al_Queda was planning an attack, but after 1993, we did know that we were going to be attacked again, and it seems as if everyone who is talking reports that Bush never held security meetings and that he never pressured the intelligence agencies to exchange information. If Bush actually focused on terrorism, I would like to know what he did.
|
If we're talking about what was expected to happen after 1993, shouldn't more concern be focused on what Clinton was doing? If al Queda was the threat that Clarke keeps going on about, why didn't Clinton accept bin Laden when he was offered? Why didn't Clinton pass on a plan for dealing with al Queda?
It seems as if terrorism, all of a sudden, got real important after Clarke started writing his book. If it wasn't important before that, how can we expect Bush to be having meetings on it?