"The commissioners on the Sept. 11 panel asked the same question over and over: Why didn't the Clinton administration take stronger military action against al Qaeda's Taliban refuge in the 1990s, when the Sept. 11 plot was being hatched?"
Read the entire article here
cwilli note: This is an outstanding article that is a must read for anyone who actually wants to know the answer to "What could we have done to prevent 9/11".
Posted by cwilli at March 24, 2004 12:48 AM | TrackBackIn my opinion, this is the best line:
The Clinton White House was the most casualty phobic administration in modern times, and this fear of body bags was not lost on Osama bin Laden.
"Would a less stubborn commander in chief have pursued the risky war plan that ultimately toppled the Taliban and put al Qaeda on the run? The record of the '90s suggests otherwise. A White House that cut and ran after the death of 18 soldiers probably would not have had the stomach for the possible casualties. A White House that could not prevail over military objections to using ground troops in Kosovo would have had a hard time overcoming institutional military objections. A White House that ordered retaliation in the form of a night-time strike on an empty intelligence building would not have backed Operation Enduring Freedom."
I still hold the position that Clinton was to blame for 9/11. His unwillingness to put our forces in harms way (and make himself look bad)ended up killing 3,000 American civilians. He cut our military and intelligence ability's and put our economy first above our security. The same thing that some Americans want to do right now.
At least now I realize that I am not alone in this theory because the commission on 9/11 is asking the exact same questions.....
Posted by: cwilli at March 24, 2004 01:00 AMCW, Welcome and agreed!
Posted by: cwilli at March 24, 2004 01:05 AMHI, I'm a website spammer, please hack me @ ip addy 66.90.104.167 or you could call and prank my company @ 1-888-738-3822.
Posted by: spammer at April 3, 2004 08:21 AM