Ever since 9/11 occurred, many on the Right have been trying to pin the tragedy on Bill Clinton. He didn’t take Al Qaeda and global terrorism seriously, he was lax on security, he let the intelligence network languish and atrophy, he passed on a deal with Sudan to have Bin Laden delivered, et al. With the recent anniversary of 9/11, many of those criticisms have resurfaced.
It sounds like a lot of drivel to me. I’m no fan of Clinton, but I’m not interested in watching conservatives pile on their favorite whipping boy either. Frankly, I’m not too quick to blame either Clinton or Bush for 9/11. Shit happens. It is worthwhile to reflect upon what one could do to improve future preparedness or response, but I’m not interested in bickering about who we can scapegoat for 9/11. I’m much more concerned about our actions in the wake of 9/11.
But I’m intrigued to have seen this report done by Keith Olbermann last month, investigating Clinton’s treatment of terror, comparing it to Bush’s.
Is it all true? I don’t know. But it does raise some interesting questions about the Republican story about the ongoing issue of terror.
(Thanks to Cliff of OneUtah.org for bringing this video to my attention.)