Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatboy
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?
|
Very good questions that I hope we get answers to when we are able to read the report from the commission.
Quote:
|
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?
|
It was important. If Clinton didn't take it seriously, that STILL does not excuse Bush and his inaction. Obviously both administrations (and those preceding it) screwed up and they all deserve blame for their mistakes and inaction. The one constant was Clarke and while I thought his testimony came off as credible, it seems that he either (1) was not good at his job, or (2) those who he advised did not heed his warnings, or a combination of both.
Whichever is the case, he should have told the people what was going on before now.
__________________
If I'd lived in Roman times, I'd have lived in Rome. Where else? Today America is the Roman Empire and New York is Rome itself. - John Lennon
April 15th, Make it just another day!
The best daily political cartoons can be found here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html