LOL sure he did. That was a credible threat and according to your own previous posts Clinton should have done more in response to it which leads me to believe that you take THAT (1998) briefing seriously. Yet the attack did not take place so who do you think prevented it, Newt Gingrich? Maybe terrorists don't attack when the nation is on high alert, when the CIA, FBI, police, FAA and all other law enforcement agencies are mobilized. Maybe the terrorists only attack when president ignores credible terrorist threats, does nothing and takes a 5 week vacation.
Hapa, it's quite simple really, Clinton gets a classified report in 1998 titled "Bin Laden preparing for attacks in the US", Clinton takes appropriate actions and Bin Laden fails to attack. Bush gets a classified report in 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US", Bush ignores it, takes a vacation, Bin Laden attacks and kills 3000 americans. BTW Bush gets a classified report in 2005 that Katrina determined to attack New Orleans, Bush ignores it, continues his vacation and loses an entire city.
You're getting way off track. You're right that there was a "credible threat," that being what happened on 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed speculated about striking the WTC using aircraft as weapons as early as 1995. Is it your contention that the 1998 threat Clinton received was not related to what happened on 9/11?
Okay, now you're doing the moonbat obfuscate thing. Gives you an excuse to avoid the facts. Fine, whatever. Take it easy.
I don't know whether it was related, you don't know that either, the few people who do know are not talking... My contention is that if Bush did in 2001 what Clinton did in 1998 9/11 may have been prevented. My contention is that Clinton did 100 times more about terrorism, Osama and Al-Qaeda than Bush did during the first 8 months of his administration (and that's not to say that Clinton did everything he could but hindsight is 20/20, Bush did not do anything at all prior to 9/11 and completely failed after 9/11).
Clinton's kooky administration could not accept Bin Laden when somebody was trying to hand the guy over because they had the legal system all screwed up and did not know what to do with him. I think that pretty much overrides anything that Hillary could possibly say. Then the current administration gets things set up the way they should have been and the loonies have been yelling ever since about prisoners rights, and nazi tortures... All this constant high noise level from the left is starting to nauseate me.
Like I said, the moonbat thing. Clinton did not accomplish anything in getting bin Laden and in fact missed opportunities to take him out. Bush changed the strategy from one of rollback to eliminating Al Qaeda, and increased funding fivefold. Bush did not have the opportunities to take bin Laden out like Clinton did. So if you're not even willing to admit that there is fault to be blamed on both sides, and you want to insist that Bush could have prevented 9/11 if he did "what Clinton did in '98," be my guest. Guess you still don't want to address Clarke's comments? Take it easy.
I kinda' agree with you Hap. There is blame that fits both administrtations, and yes, President Clinton missed a couple of golden opportunities to kill bin laden. Presiedent Bush has not had the exact same kind of opportunites, but opportunites none the less. Where we may be in disagreement is that President Bush had some serious red flags going up in July and August of 2001 and he had a business as usual attitude. He and his administration most certainly could have, and should have taken preventative, agressive measures. It was the beginning of a distrubing trend that he has followed to date. Simply put, he's stubborn to a fault, won't listen to anyone but a very select few, and his whole, mission from God thing, is inappropriate behavior for a President. He's a well intentioned fuck up, but a fuck up none the less, and we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions.