Yesterday, TalkLeft …

Yesterday, TalkLeft posted this short entry:

This isn’t a headline the Bush administration wants to see:

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable

Correct me if I’m wrong, but al Qaeda had been planning for years to attack New York and Washington. If they were preventable, wouldn’t they be more preventable earlier, say, during the Clinton administration? Why isn’t this a bad headline for the Clinton “legacy”? (Answer: It is.)

And honestly, as I said almost 2 years ago, would Democrats really have had the stomach for what would have been required to prevent them? They don’t have the stomach not, post 9/11, for it. Yeah, leadership means making the hard choices in spite of partisan sniping. Still, for all their bluster about wanting to “rolling back” terrorism (by bombing aspirin factories and empty training camps), and even with hindsight available, it sounds like they would have been more resistant to legislation to prevent 9/11 than they even are now.

UPDATE: JunkYard Blog brings the point home, noting that the 9/11 Commission Chairman agrees that Clinton had multiple opportunities to remove bin Laden as a threat and scuttled them all.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!