It seems that some people can´t get over Clinton, and what he did or did not do during his mandate. Even though Clinton has been out of the picture for quite some time now...
It is obvious that the current situation cannot be blamed on one single administration, in this case Bush´s administration.
But we should ponder a few facts and circumstances.
First of all, it should be painfully obvious to any one that boggling up an entire administration and hanging it up on a pseudo-crisis over where the presidential penis has been or not, is not a good way to get things done.
I believe Clinton´s advisors and aids were just swamped under tremendous pressure to solve a problem that shouldn´t have ever gotten so much publicity. The White House´s resources and time were consumed by petty ass acusations, innuendos, and lame soap opera material. Of course this doesn´t excuse them from sharing some of the blame for a poorly done job, especially when taken into atention the total disaster of previous administrations in matters of foreign policy.
But lets face the facts:
It wasn´t Clinton who was sitting in the white house, when 9/11 came about.
Had the 9/11 taken place just a few short days or even weeks after Bush started his mandate, it would be understandable. But it wasn´t.
Bush had been in office for quite some time, and thus he should already have been kept up to speed on such things.
Could he prevented 9/11? I don´t think so. But then again, the jury is still out on that one, we don´t know what lies behind 9/11, nor who ordered it, and the Pentagon hit still looks and smells too fishy to make any judgements.
But, assuming Bush didn´t have anything to do with it, either by action or lack of it, i suspect it would be virtually impossible for him to prevent it.
Wich brings us to the "why" in this case. Why could it not be prevented?
Why didn´t the intel and law enforcement agencies worked together? Why wasn´t information shared? Why were the suspects allowed to remain in the US for so long unattended?
Let´s face it, while we can say that Clinton was too busy dodging the press to pay any attention to it, we can also say Bush was too busy planning for Iraq. But it is not Clinton who is running for re-election on the premise that he did wonders in the fight against terrorism, is he? It wasn´t Clinton who diverted the inteligence community´s efforts into Iraq, instead of the more pressing danger that Al-qaeda presented, or was he?
It wasn´t Clinton´s administration who lied and deceived to gain public support to a cause that had nothing at all to do with terrorism, and yet Bush painted it as such. Why has the Bush administration diverted so many important assets off and out of Afghanistan, where they were actually needed, for a war with shaddy purposes? Yes, maybe Bush couldn´t prevent 9/11. But he shure as hell could have prevented the 3/11 in Madrid. Just as he could have prevented the bombings in Turkey. Not only he didn´t prevent them, he is directly to blame for them!
Should a man who caused such harm to the international struggle on terrorism, be allowed to base his re-election campaign on such a claim?
Yes, Clinton only launched a few Tomahawks, closed a few bank accounts, arrested a few terrorists, and not much else. But even if we compare them both, Bush has done so much less that he pales in comparison. Not only that, he has given birth to a brand new generation of raving mad, US angry, and stone cold determined terrorists, a thing that not even Nixon or Reagan managed to do in over 30 years!
In short, there´s a whole lot of angry people out there, and Bush is the droolling father of them all. All Clinton can aspire to be is a distant cousin.
:indeed:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.