Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That's not the issue--if you want to assume negligence, go ahead. If so, it still won't absolve the Bush Administration from being just as negligent, perhaps even moreso. However, it is indisputable the intelligence and recommendations were passed on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/na...l?pagewanted=1
That's not the issue--if you want to assume negligence, go ahead. If so, it still won't absolve the Bush Administration from being just as negligent, perhaps even moreso. However, it is indisputable the intelligence and recommendations were passed on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/na...l?pagewanted=1
Bush did not have any precise intel that he could have acted upon. He did not know the how, when or where. Clinton on the other hand, had 2 perfect opportunities where he knew precisely where Bin Laden was living. He should have acted on those opportunities.
The bottom line is that Clinton was more worried about his political image than about protecting the American people. And as a result, 3,000 Americans paid the price on 9-11.
Comment